Está en la página 1de 2


Final Exam
April 17, 2018


1. What are unenforceable contracts? (6 points)

2. What is “statute of frauds”? (4 points)
3. What contracts are rescissible? (10 points)
4. Distinguish Ordinary Prescription from Extraordinary Prescription
(10 points)


1. Pingol was hired by PLDT as a maintenance technician. While still

under the employ of PLDT, he was admitted at The Medical City, for
“paranoid personality disorder” due to financial and marital
problems. But was released after several days from the hospital and
thereafter reported from work; however he frequently absented
himself due to his poor mental condition. Pingol was absent from
work without official leave from September 16, 1999 to December 31,
1999. PLDT sent notices to him with a stern warning that he would
be dismissed from employment if he continued to be absent without
official leave provided in their policy. Despite the warning, he failed
to show up for work. On January 1, 2000, PLDT terminated his
services on the grounds of authorized absences and abandonment of
office. Four (4) years later, Pingol filed a Complaint for Constructive
Dismissal and Monetary Claims against PLDT alleging that he was
hastily dismissed from his employment in January 2000. In response
of the complaint, PLDT filed a motion to dismiss claiming, among
others, that respondent’s cause of action had already prescribed as
the complaint was filed four (4) years and three (3) months after his
dismissal. Pingol on the other hand argued that the prescriptive
period was tolled by his constant follow up with PLDT. He said that
from 2001 to 2003, he was inquiring from PLDT about the financial
benefits due him as an employee who was no longer allowed to do
his work, but he merely got empty promises. Did Pingol’s action
prescribe? (20 points)

2. After the DPWH had awarded on July 22, 1997 the contract for the
improvement of the Sadsadan-Maba-ay Section of the Mountain
Province-Benguet Road to Gonzalo Construction, petitioner Gonzalo
subcontracted to respondent Tarnate on October 15, 1997, the supply
of materials and labor for the project under the latter’s business
known as JNT Aggregates. Their agreement stipulated, among
others, that Tarnate would pay to Gonzalo eight percent and four
percent of the contract price, respectively, upon Tarnate’s first and
second billing in the project.

In furtherance of their agreement, Gonzalo executed on April 6,

1999 a deed of assignment whereby he, as the contractor, was
assigning to Tarnate an amount equivalent to 10% of the total
collection from the DPWH for the project. This 10% retention fee
was the rent for Tarnate’s equipment that had been utilized in the
project. In the deed of assignment, Gonzalo further authorized
Tarnate to use the official receipt of Gonzalo Construction in the
processing of the documents relative to the collection of the 10%
retention fee and in encashing the check to be issued by the DPWH
for that purpose. The deed of assignment was submitted to the
DPWH on April 15, 1999. During the processing of the documents
for the retention fee, however, Tarnate learned that Gonzalo had
unilaterally rescinded the deed of assignment by means of an
affidavit of cancellation of deed of assignment dated April 19, 1999
filed in the DPWH on April 22, 1999; and that the disbursement
voucher for the 10% retention fee had then been issued in the name
of Gonzalo, and the retention fee released to him.

Are the subcontract and deed of assignment void contracts? (20


3. On July 6, 1976, Jun and Kaloy executed a deed of exchange. Under

this instrument, Jun agreed to convey his 64.22-square-meter lot to
Kaloy, in exchange for a 500-square-meter property. The contract
was entered into without the consent of Kaloy’s wife. Is the deed of
exchange null and void? (15 points)

4. Cenido, as an heir of Aparato and claiming to be the owner of a

house and lot, filed a complaint for ejectment against spouses
Apacionado. On the other hand, spouses Apacionado allege that
they are the owners which are unregistered, purchased by them
from its previous owner, Aparato. Their claim is anchored on a 1-
page typewritten document entitled "Pagpapatunay," executed by
Aparato. Is the “Pagpapatunay” entered into by Bonifacio and
spouse Apacionado valid and enforceable? (15 points)