[Solved] A is indebted to ABC Corporation in the amount of P100M. Despite efforts to collect from A, the latter failed to pay due to business reverses as he has no more assets. In order to maintain a more accurate inventory of the worth of its current assets, ABC Corp. was forced to write-off A’s obligation. One (1) year later, A won the lotto draw in the US in the amount of $100M. Learning of the good luck of A, it demanded for payment, but A refused to pay contending that his obligation was extinguished when it was written-off. Is A correct?

Q.	A is indebted to ABC Corporation in the amount of P100M. Despite efforts to collect from A, the latter failed to pay due to business reverses as he has no more assets. In order to maintain a more accurate inventory of the worth of its current assets, ABC Corp. was forced to write-off A’s obligation. One (1) year later, A won the lotto draw in the US in the amount of $100M. Learning of the good luck of A, it demanded for payment, but A refused to pay contending that his obligation was extinguished when it was written-off. Is A correct?
A.	A is correct because write-off is a mode of extinguishing an obligation.
B.	A is correct because write-off is a compromise of liability.
C.	A is correct because write-off is a condonation of an obligation.
D.	A is not correct because in making the write-off, only the creditor takes action by removing the uncollectible account from its books even without the approval or participation of the debtor, hence, there is no extinguishment of the obligation. (Reyna, et al. v. COA, G.R. No. 167219, February 8, 2011)
Answer» D. A is not correct because in making the write-off, only the creditor takes action by removing the uncollectible account from its books even without the approval or participation of the debtor, hence, there is no extinguishment of the obligation. (Reyna, et al. v. COA, G.R. No. 167219, February 8, 2011)

1.9k

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

A lent money to B in 1950 payable in 1951. Despite demand, B failed to pay. In 2011, his daughter who recently became a lawyer sent a demand for payment to B who sent a letter acknowledging the debt and asked for one (1) year to pay but failed to pay within the extended period. A filed a complaint for sum of money. How do you think the court will decide?
A tolerated B to use his land, hence, B constructed a road where his trucks would pass through, going in and out of his land. Fifty (50) years thereafter, A asked B to pay rentals but B refused contending that he has already acquired ownership over the easement of right of way by prescription. Is B correct?
A, an employee of XYZ Corp., receiving a salary of P40,000.00 per month died due to a vehicular accident. During the trial of the case filed by his heirs, the latter failed to produce his income tax returns as he never filed the same with the BIR and yet, they were claiming for damages due to unearned income. Is the defendant liable?
X brought a house and lot from Y valued at P5M. He paid P3M and for the balance, he executed a promissory note with interest at 10% to be paid within 90 days. ABC Corporation executed a surety for the balance. X failed to pay, hence, ABC paid the amount and sued X for the interest and the principal. X contended that he is not bound due to novation when Y accepted the security. Is X correct?
A built his house on his lot up to the boundary line and opened windows with direct view over the lot of B. Twenty (20) years later, B built his house up to the boundary line of his lot, hence, A filed a complaint enjoining B from building his house up to the boundary contending that he has acquired the easement of light and view by prescription and that B cannot build less than 3 meters from the boundary. Is A correct?
A & B lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. For a few months before his death, A was writing his autobiography and stated that he loved B so much and because of that, they decided to live together as husband and wife, but planned to marry. At the time he was writing his autobiography, B was pregnant and he stated in his autobiography that he was the father of the child inside the womb of B. He died without finishing it and failed to sign the same. Two (2) months thereafter, the child C, was born, hence, B sought to register the child under the name of A but the Local Civil Registrar refused, hence, she filed a suit for mandamus to compel the registrar to register the child under A’s name. She testified as narrated above; D, the father of A testified that during the lifetime of A he lived with B and she was pregnant at that time. E the brother of A likewise testified along the same line. Is the action of B correct?
Charlie gave his diamond-encrusted watch worth Php 25,000.00 to his friend Danny as a birthday gift. Danny readily accepted the gift with profuse gratitude. One month later, they had a serious quarrel; hence, Charlie demanded the return of the watch from Danny. Danny refused to return the watch. What is the nature of this donation?
A and B are married. They are governed by the conjugal partnership of gains. A, the Executive Vice-President of ABC Corp. signed as a surety in a loan secured by the company from Metrobank for the rehabilitation of the company. As business was good after rehabilitation, A was given a house and lot, a brand new caw and raise in his salary. The company was sued due to its failure to pay the loan. Are the properties of A and B liable?
A is a contractor, building roads for the government which has not paid him P100M. Before he filed his income tax returns, he wrote a letter to the BIR Commissioner proposing a set-off between the State and A considering that his tax liability amounts to P10M and the State has not paid him despite demand. Is A correct?
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?