Uploaded by claire vanguardia


oblicon articles 1156-1157
1 pag.
Document shared on www.docsity.com
Downloaded by: asdfgh1234569000000 (claireivy.vanguardia@gmail.com)
SECTION 1: Introduction, Articles 1156 - 1157
Quiz #1 - Introduction
Situation # 1
X saw at about 1 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?
In the event, Y must reimburse for the 150.00 pesos worth of food he spent
when he took his child to a restaurant to eat. Although X voluntarily did it without
the knowledge and consent of Y, based on the principle of negotiorum gestio, no
one must be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.
Situation # 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 o X suffered damage. Under the circumstances, does it follow that Y is liable to X
for the damage?
In the said situation, quasi-delict applies. Although the car was not bumped
intentionally by Y and there was no pre-existing contractual relation between the
parties, there is an act of negligence from Y that caused damage to the car of X.
Hence, Y is liable to X for the damages.
Situation # 3
In the same problem, has X the right to ask for indemnity or payment of damages 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?
Yes, X has no right to ask for an indemnity payment of damage from R
because R is not present when the incident happened. R also has nothing to do
with the accident.
Situation # 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?
No, because when D loaned from C, he entered an involuntary agreement,
and D was willing, and therefore the contract is valid. Thus, D must comply with
their arrangement in good trust and does not have a legal justification to withhold
payment to C.
Document shared on www.docsity.com
Downloaded by: asdfgh1234569000000 (claireivy.vanguardia@gmail.com)