ObliCon Online Activity 4 (Rommel A. Cabalhin)

Rommel A.
Cabalhin EH309
Online Activity No. 4
I.
No, Juan cannot refuse Maria because the stipulation that is being used as a
defense by Juan is contrary to Art. 1308 of the NCC or the legal principle of
mutuality of contracts, thus void.
The stipulation that the lease shall be valid for as long as Juan is financially
able and willing gives Juan the power to determine whether or not the contract
shall be valid or fulfilled. Ergo, the stipulation in the contract is void and Maria is
not bound nor obliged to honor the lease and she can lawfully use the second
floor of the building without any legal impediments.
II.
No, C’s contention is incorrect.
Although it is a general rule that third persons that have no personality to
question the validity of the contract in accordance with the principle of relativity
of contracts under Art. 1311, an exception is given to protect creditors in cases of
contracts intended to defraud them pursuant to Art. 1313.
Furthermore, under Art. 1177, the creditor is given the right to impugn the
contracts the contracts of his debtor intended to defraud him. Art. 1381 (1) also
provides that contracts undertaken by a debtor in fraud of his creditor without
the knowledge of the latter are rescissible contracts.
In the case at bar, B sold the parcel of land, without the knowledge of A and
with the intent to defraud him. Such sale to C is rescissible and A have every right
to annul the sale.
III.
Yes, the withdrawal of Juan prior to the acceptance of Pedro is proper.
Art. 1324 of the New Civil Code provides that when an offerer has allowed
the offeree a certain period to accept, the offer may be withdrawn at any time
before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option
is founded upon a consideration, as something paid or promised.
In this case, since Pedro did not paid any “option money” as an exception
to the rule, he is not entitled to compel Juan from keeping his 10 day offer. Juan
has the right to cancel any time because he, as a promissor, is not bound to keep
his promise absent any considerations such as “option money” or “earnest
money.”
[Supposing that Juan unilaterally offered to buy Pedro’s motorcycle and
the latter unconditionally accepted the offer prior to his withdrawal, can Juan
still withdraw the offer to buy?]
No, Juan is not entitled anymore to withdraw the offer to buy the
motorcycle because a contract of sale is already perfected when Pedro
unconditionally accepted his offer notwithstanding the absence of a
consideration.
In Sanchez v. Rigos, the Supreme Court abandoned the rule that offers may
still be withdrawn absent any consideration even if the offer was already
accepted prior to withdrawal. It held that “Pending notice notice of his
withdrawal, his promise partakes the nature of an offer to sell which, if
accepted, results in a perfected contract of sale.”
The ruling in that case is applicable to this case because Pedro accepted the
offer before the withdrawal of the offer, it resulted to a perfection of the contract
of sale of the motorcycle between the two of them.
IV.
A. Following the cognition theory under Art. 1319 (2), the contract is
perfected from the moment the acceptance comes to the knowledge of the
offerer. This principle
In this case, the contract was perfected on March 10, 2020 when the
acceptance of the offer was sent and received by A, the offerer. The fact that the
letter was made and that the actual acceptance of B is on March 8, 2020 has no
effect because the same was not known to A. Thus, the contract was deemed
perfected on March 10, 2020.
B. No, because A had the right to withdraw inasmuch as he had not yet
received notice of the acceptance on March 9, 2020.
In the case of Laudicio v. Arias, the Supreme Court held that before an
offerer learns of the acceptance, he is not yet bound by it and can still withdraw
the offer. While there was an offer, there was no acceptance, and when the latter
was made and could have binding effect, the offer was then lacking. Thus, in this
case, because the letter of acceptance was sent and made known to A only on
March 10, 2020, A can still withdraw the offer.

ObliCon Online Activity 4 (Rommel A. Cabalhin)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ObliCon Online Activity 4 (Rommel A. Cabalhin)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ObliCon Online Activity 4 (Rommel A. Cabalhin)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rommel A.

You might also like