1. Wally sold his 2nd-hand car to Bayola for P200,000. They agreed that Wally will pay half of the purchase price, or P100,000, upon delivery of the said car to Bayola, and the balance of P100,000 shall be paid in five (5) equal monthly installments of P20,000 each. The car was delivered to Bayola, and she paid P100,000 to Wally. Shortly thereafter, the car was stolen from Bayola's garage without her fault and was never recovered. Question: Is Bayola still legally bound to pay Wally the unpaid balance of P100,000? Explain your answer.

2. Sara sold her car to Kiko who issued a post-dated check in full payment of the agreed price. Before the check matures, Kiko sold the same car to Lito who later sold it to Willie. However, when Sara presented the check for payment, it was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason that Kiko had already closed his account even before he issued his check. Sara filed a case to recover the car from Willie claiming that she had been unlawfully deprived of it by reason of Kiko's deception. Question: Will the suit prosper? Why or why not? Explain your answer.

3. Manny offers to buy Isko's property under the following terms and conditions: P5 million purchase price; 10% "option money"; balance payable in cash upon the clearance of the property of all illegal occupants. *As agreed, Manny promptly paid the "option money" and Isko cleared the subject property from illegal occupants. *When Manny is to pay the balance and ask Isko to execute a deed of absolute sale, Isko had a change of heart, saying that the deal is disadvantageous to him as he found out that the property is three (3) times higher than the agreed purchase price. *Manny sued Isko for specific performance. In response, Isko claims that Manny merely gave him an option to buy and nothing more, and offers to return the option money which Manny refuses to accept. Question: Who is correct? Explain.