III. Problems Explain or state briefly the rule or reason for your answers.

1. X saw at about one (1:00 p.m.) in the afternoon a child alone in a shopping mall. The child who
strayed from Y, his mother, was in tears and appeared very hungry. Out of pity, X took him to a
restaurant to eat for which he spent P150. Y did not give her consent to the good deed of X.
Furthermore, they were on their way home before the child got lost. Is X entitled to be reimbursed by Y
for the amount of P150?

* Yes X still has the right to be paid for the expenses X has incurred for Y’s child, clearly stated in ART
1160 that obligations derived from voluntary acts by virtue of which the parties becomes bound by each
other. In this scenario X incurred sme expenses for Y’s child, even though no contact has been signed yet
an obligation by Y as the parent of child was assumed by X therefor Y is liable of the expenses incurred
by X.

2. While the car of X was parked by the roadside, it was bumped at the rear by a jeep belonging to Y.
Only the car of X suffered damage. Under the circumstances, does it follow that Y is liable to X for the
damage?

* It was not clear if the jeep bumped X’s car intentionally or not. From my own point view wether or not
the jeep driver did that intentionally or unintentionally still Y who is the owner of the said jeep is still
liable for the damages that was caused by the accident. It was clearly stated on both Art 1161 and 1162
which covers both for crime and quasi-delicts. I’ve come up with the idea of using both articles
tosupport my stand because again it was not mentioned wether it was intentional orjust by accident.

3. In the same problem, has X the right to ask indemnity from R, employer of X, on the ground that
when the accident occurred X was then on his way to transact business with a client of R?

*As provided by the law the emloyer of X which is R is not liable and does not have any obligations as to
the damages made even though his employer is on its way to a business meeting, stated in ART 1158
that for it to be demandable it must be clearly set forth in the Law. In some cases the company would
also consider paying for the repairs of the damage most especially if the car is not a personal car but a
company car.

4. D (debtor) borrowed P10,000 from C(creditor). On the due date of the loan, D could not pay C
because he lost to a robber the P10,000 intended for C. In addition, he suffered financial reverses, and
he was short of cash even for his current family's needs. Is D legally justified to refuse to pay C?

*It was stated that no one shall be put in jail for non-payment of debt, however ART 1159 cleary states
that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and shoukd
be complied with in good faith. But it was not mentioned in the situation as to any contract that will
bind both parties though there is an actual amount of money being received by the borrower still for me
it is not legally obligated to pay for the amount of money since there are no evidences. However as a
borrower D shall also be responsible and apply good faith in paying and taking the responsibilities of his
actions.