[Solved] Mr. Oliveros, by virtue of a written agreement agreed to deliver to Mr. Santos a car on a specified date provided the latter pays the former P1 million.

Q.	Mr. Oliveros, by virtue of a written agreement agreed to deliver to Mr. Santos a car on a specified date provided the latter pays the former P1 million.
A.	The prestation is the car; Mr. Santos is the active subject; Mr. Oliveros is the passive subject and the juridical tie is the contract.
B.	The active subject is Mr. Oliveros; the passive subject is Mr. Santos; the juridical tie is the law and the prestation is the giving of the car.
C.	The active subject is Mr. Santos; the passive subject is Mr. Oliveros; the prestation is the delivery of the car and the juridical tie is law.
D.	The passive subject is Mr. Oliveros; the active subject is Mr. Santos; the prestation is the delivery of the car and the juridical tie is the contract.
Answer» B. The active subject is Mr. Oliveros; the passive subject is Mr. Santos; the juridical tie is the law and the prestation is the giving of the car.

1.9k

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

Santos owes Maria P5 million. The debt is secured by a mortgaged on the house of Santos. No. 1 - If before the due date, the security is lost through no one’s fault, Maria can declare the debt due and demandable even before the original maturity date. No. 2 - If the house was burned up to 25% its value through the fault of Santos, the debt may be declared due by Maria even before the original maturity date but she cannot do so if the impairment was without the fault of Santos.
A & B entered into a contract of sale over A’s car for P500,000.00. A has to register the car first before payment and delivery. After the registration of the car, A called up B that the car was ready for pick up. B asked him to send his driver to deliver the car as he was going to pay before delivery. B was able to convince the driver to leave the car at his garage and will just deposit the amount with A’s account for fear that the driver might be the subject of a hold-up. Instead of depositing the amount, he sold the car to C. Can A recover the car from C?
Jose is under obligation to deliver to Pedro, at the option of Jose, a car, a pick-up truck, or a van, all of which are specific. No. 1 - If the car and the pick-up truck were lost through Jose’s fault, he has no choice but to deliver the van; If the van was lost through a fortuitous event before delivery, the obligation is extinguished and Jose is not liable. No. 2 - If the pick-up truck and the car were lost through a fortuitous event, Jose has no choice but to deliver the van; if before delivery, the van was lost because of Jose’s fault, he is liable.
On June 5, 2000, Jose Dizon was supposed to deliver to Ruben Samia a specified red car. There was no delivery however, on said date. On June 15, 2000, the garage of the car collapsed because of an earthquake and the car was totally destroyed. Is Jose Dizon liable?
P appointed A, his agent for the purpose of selling the former’s car for P500,000.00. A sold the car in his name to B. After delivery, it was found out that the car has hidden defects which rendered the car unfit for the purpose of B. Can B file an action against P even if A acted in his own name?
Seller wrote Buyer offering to sell his only house for a specified price. The letter was mailed on the same date it was written. Buyer offered to buy the same house for the same price and the letter containing the offer to buy was also mailed on the same date it was written. On the same date and time Seller and Buyer received the letters written to each other.
A sold his car to B, but the latter failed to register the car under his name. While B was driving the car, it met an accident resulting in injuries to C. Who may be liable?
When “A” promises to deliver to “B” any car, he has the obligation to preserve his car with due car.
Mr. S sold a banana plantation to Mr. B for P3 million although its market value is P20 million. It was agreed that Mr. S shall remain in possession as lessee of the land and shall be responsible for the real estate taxes.
A is the owner of a parcel of land covered by TCT No. 1. Through an oral agreement between B & A. A agreed that the property be registered under the name of B so that he can use it in securing a loan with Metrobank. When A sought to recover the property from B, the latter refused contending that he was the owner of the same. Is the contention of B correct?