Can I ask for the answers and brief explanations for the following questions of this problem? This is from my Law on Agency.

Problem #3

As it turns out Ms. Shrimp did not own the land covered by Certificate of Title No. 1691 which contain an area of 1000 sq meters. Such land is co-owned by Ms. Curvy and Ms. Mamorge equally.

On a very nice day on January 11, 2021, Ms. Shrimp sold such land to Ms. Gwapapang Baki stipulating that the land is 1000 sq meters, sold at Php 1000/sq meters indicating the bounderies thereof. Sale was reduced in writing and notarized on the same date, signed by the parties. No title was transmitted nor shown. Ms. Curvy was present during the sale and in fact signed as a witness to the sale.

On a stormy day of January 12, 2021, Ms. Shrimp sold the same land to Mr. Nawng Okok. The property was properly described stipulating the same terms and the same price. The contract was reduced in writing and notarized on January 13, 2021. As proof of ownership Ms. Shrimp transmitted the Tax Declaration of the property no. 016019. The sale was reflected and registered at the back of the Tax Declaration

There is a squatter, Mr. Pormaray Ayo, to the land who claims ownership over the land by virtue of acquisitive prescription due to open, continuous, notorious possession of the land in the concept of owner for more than 40 years.

1.) As to Ms. Shrimp and Ms. Gwapapang Baki:

a. The contract of sale is void

b. the contract of sale is voidable

c. the contract of sale is rescissible

d. the contract of sale is valid

2.) As to Ms. Shrimp and Ms. Gwapapang Baki:

a. there is a probability that Ms. Baki would be legally evicted 100% of the property

b. there is a probability that Ms. Baki would be legally evicted 50% of the property

c. there is a probability that Ms. Baki would be legally evicted 25% of the property

d. there is no probability that Ms. Baki would be evicted

3.) As to Ms. Shrimp and Mr. Okok:

a. The contract of sale is void

b. the contract of sale is voidable

c. the contract of sale is rescissible

d. the contract of sale is valid

4.) As to Ms. Shrimp and Mr. Okok:

a. there is a probability that Mr. Okok would be legally evicted 100% of the property

b. there is a probability that Mr. Okok would be legally evicted 50% of the property

c. there is a probability that Ms. Okok would be legally evicted 25% of the property

d. there is no probability that Mr. Okok would be evicted

5.) As to Mr. Ayo:

a. there is a probability that Mr. Ayo would be legally evicted 100% of the property

b. there is a probability that Mr. Ayo would be legally evicted 50% of the property

c. there is a probability that Mr. Ayo would be legally evicted 25% of the property

d. there is no probability that Mr. Ayo would be evicted

6.) As to Mr. Ayo assuming his statements is true:

a. He will have a better right than Ms. Shrimp

b. He will have a better right than Mr. Okok and Mr. Baki for his right arises way before the sale

c. He will have a better right than Ms. Curvy and Ms. Mamorge because they lost their right upon the 30th year through prescription

d. He has no right over the property

7.) Assuming Ms. Shrimp has the right to sell the property; among Ms. Baki, Mr. Okok and Mr. Ayo:

a. Ms. Baki will have the better as she has the oldest title thereof

b. Mr. Okok will have a better right for he is the first person who registers the sale

c. Mr. Ayo will have the better right for he is the possessor thereof

d. The property will remain with Ms. Shrimp for the sale is void.

8.) Assuming Ms. Shrimp has the right to sell the property. On January 12, 2021, subsequent to the sale, Ms. Shrimp placed portable LCD projectors on the land to make it beautiful at night. As between her and Mr. Okok only:

a. Okok has the right to the projectors as they are considered fruits

b. Okok has the right to the projectors as they are considered accessories or accessions

c. Okok has no right over the projectors for although they are considered fruits but they were placed after the sale

d. Okok has no right over the projectors as they are considered accessories or accessions

9.) Ms Curvy and Ms. Mamorge showed the title over the land demanded from Okok and Baki that they recognize their ownership over the land sold by Shrimp. In the present case:

a. an immediate right of warranty against eviction accrues to both Okok and Baki

b. Shrimp is still not liable for warranty against eviction for the property has not yet been delivered

c. Shrimp is still not liable for warranty against eviction the minimum requirement for the claim for such warranty is a valid suit filed against the buyers

d. Okok and Baki should not recognize their ownership and instead ask them to file their case in court.

10.) Ms Curvy and Ms. Mamorge filed a case against Ms. Baki and Okok and a judgment which provides that Baki and Okok should deliver the land to the former was handed down on January 30, 2021. In the present case, on January 30, 2021:

a. Only Baki may claim warranty against eviction

b. Only Okok may claim warranty against eviction

c. Both Baki and Okok may claim warranty against eviction

d. Neither can, on that date, claim warranty against eviction

11.) On January 15, 2021 Mr. Okok discovered that Ms. Shrimp's right to sell the property is only up to the extent of 50% of the property. In the present case:

a. Okok has the right of rescission for such right is available when there is lacking in area to the extent of at least 10%

b. Okok has the right of rescission for such right is available when there is lacking in area of more than 10%

c. Okok has the right of rescission for it is implied in reciprocal obligations

d. Okok has no right of rescission

12.) On January 15, 2021 Mr. Okok discovered that Ms. Shrimp's right to sell the property is only up to the extent of 50% of the property. In the present case any right of Okok under the law should be claimed:

a. within 6 months starting January 15, 2021

b. within 6 months starting January 13, 2021

c. has not yet arise due to lack of delivery

d. after 6 months starting the date it is discovered

13.) Assuming Mr. Ayo acquires the property by acquisitive prescription on January 30, 2021 and effectively evicted both Baki and Okok.

a. Only Baki has a right of warranty against eviction

b. Only Okok has a right of warranty against eviction

c. Both has a right of warranty against eviction

d. Neither has a right of warranty against eviction