Law Dictionary

Question XI, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question XI, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Samantha sold all her business interest in a sole proprietorship to Sergio for the amount of PhP1 million. Under the sale agreement, Samantha was supposed to pay for all prior unpaid utility bills incurred by the sole proprietorship. A month after the Contract to Sell was executed, Samantha still had not paid the PhP50,000 electricity bills incurred prior to the sale. Since Sergio could not operate the business without electricity and the utility company refused to restore electricity services unless the unpaid bills were settled in full, Sergio had to pay the unpaid electricity bills. When the date for payment arrived, Sergio only tendered PhP950,000 representing the full purchase price, less the amount he paid for the unpaid utility bills. Samantha refused to accept the tender on the ground that she was the one supposed to pay the bills and Sergio did not have authorization to pay on her behalf.

(a) What is the effect of payment made by Sergio without the knowledge and consent of Samantha? (2.5%)

(b) Is Samantha guilty of mora accipiendi? (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) Samantha’s obligation to the utility company is extinguished and Sergio is subrogated to the utility company. Answer

Under the Civil Code, there is legal subrogation when, even without the knowledge of the debtor, a person interested in the fulfillment of the obligation pays, without prejudice to the effects of confusion as to the latter’s share. Rule

In the case at bar, Sergio has interests in Samantha paying the Php1 Million utility bill to the utility company. Accordingly, Sergio may pay the debt and be subrogated to the utility company. Apply

Thus, the debt on the utility bill is extinguished and Sergio is subrogated to the utility company. Conclusion

(b) Yes. Answer

Under jurisprudence, there is mora accipiendi when there is delay on the part of the obligee/creditor in accepting the performance of the obligation by the obligor/debtor. Rule

In the case at bar, Samantha as obligee is delaying on the acceptance of the payment from Sergio as the obligor. She had no justification nor reason not to accept the payment. As indicated earlier, Sergio validly paid the utility bill on her behalf since he had interests thereto as the buyer of the sole proprietorship. Apply

Thus, Samantha is guilty of mora accipiendi. Conclusion

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question XVIII, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Shasha purchased an airline ticket from Sea Airlines (SAL) covering Manila-Bangkok- Hanoi-Manila. The ticket was exclusively endorsable to Siam Airlines (SMA). The contract of air

Question X, Civil Law, 2017 Bar Exam

Briefly explain whether the following contracts are valid, rescissible, unenforceable, or void: (a) A contract of sale between Lana and Andy wherein 16-year old Lana

Question X, Political Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (2.5% each) (a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for

Top Read

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

in dubio pro reo

Latin maxim. • “when in doubt, for the accused” (People v. Salcena, G.R. No. 192261, November 16, 2011)

expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Latin maxim. • “The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.” (San Miguel Corporation Employees Union-Phil. Transport and General Workers Org. v. San

Read more


You cannot copy content of this page