Choose the letter of the correct answer:

1.Generally, the court is not authorized to fix a period. The following are the exceptions, EXCEPT:

A. When the debtor binds himself to pay when his means permit him to do so.

B.If under the circumstances. the parties have contemplated a period

C. if the period depends upon the will of the creditor,

D. If the obligation does not fix a period, but trom its nature and circumstances, it can be interred that a period was intended.

2. Is tax evasion a form of fraud?

A. No. because a taxpayer has legal right to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes.

B. Yes. because it connotes fraud through use of pretenses and forbidden devices to lessen or defeat taxes.

C. Yes, because it is the same as tax avoidance where the law allows certain expenses to be deducted from the gross income and yield a ower taxabie income

D. No, because the law allows avoidance of taxes payable.

3.Deok-sun and Taek are girlfriend and boyfriend, respectively. They bought a brand new 2021 Mercedes Benz E-Class

Cabriolet convertible car with plate number RPLY 1988. Deok-sun paid the downpayment while Taek undertook to pay the monthly amortization. Since they shared for the price of the car, they agreed, in writing. that they each own half share on

the car. Is the ownership of the car divisible or indivisible?

A. DIVISIBLE. While the car itself is indivisible. Deokesun initialy owned the car when she paid the downpayment, but it will ultmately be

laek wno Woud owm tne car once ne nishes payung alnorEatn.

B. INDIVIsIBLE. THe object of the obligation is an indivisibie one. ihere Can be no owner of halr the car and another Owner of the other half of the car.

C. INDIVISIBLE. The amount of the car is considered one entire amount that pertains to just one particular car. Even if different people paid tor the downpayment and tne amortzaon, the pice or tne calr s cosered an ndivisapie amount pertaining to an indivisibile car,

D. DIVISIBLE. While the car itself is indivisible, the shares on the ownership of the car is divisiblie by intelectual division, as agreed upon by the owners.

4.Which statement is true as regards the following promissory note:

"We promise to pay A. B and C the sum of P18,000.

(signed) X, Y and Z."

A. Z is obliged to pay C P12,000

B. Z is obliged to pay C P6,000

C. Z is obliged to pay C P18,000

D. Z is obliged to pay C P2,000

5.X. Y and Z are solidarily liable to A for P30,000 which matures on July 1, 2018. On May 1. 2018, X paid A for the whole amount of the debt. If on December 1. 2018. X will be reimbursed by Y., the latter will be liable for:

A. P10.000 without interest

D. P10.000 with interest from July 1. 2018 to December 1. 2018

C. P10,000 with interest from May 1. 2018 to July 1,. 2018

D. P10.000 with interest from May 1, 2018 to December 1, 2018

6. For services rendered by Jose to Maria. Maria issued Jose a check payable to CASH worth P50000 dated March 1021

Jose accepted the check. On February 14, 2021. Jose needed money to date his gidfriend Tina for Valentines day. Eary that morning of February 14, ose went to Berto to have the check "rediscounted" Jose endorsed the check in tavor of

Berto and Berto gave Jose P49.000. On March 1. 2021. Berto was successfully able to encash the check. Jose went to

Maria asking for payment of his services.

Jose argued that the check paid by Maria is not legal tender and the obligation is thus, not yet extinguished. Is Jose correct?

A YES, Jose is correct. Check is not legal tender in the Philippines, Payment by check does not extinguish an obligation.

B.NO, Jose is not correet. Check is not legal tender unless encashed. Jose accepted the check as poyment and the same has been

Successtuly encashed.

C. NO, Jose is not correct. Maria made a valid tender of payment via check and it was properly consigned to Jose. According to the Iaw, tender of payment coupled with consignment extinguishes an obliganon

D. YES, Jose is correct. It was Jose, not Berto, who encashed the check As far as Jose is concerned, the check was never encashed and the check not being legal tender never had an effect of payment which could have extinguished the obligation.

7.May an obligation be joint on the side of creditors and solidary on the side of the debtors, or vice versa?

A. YES, because solidarity is never presumed and the general rule is that the relationship would always be joint. absent any stipulation to contrary.

B. NO because parties are not free to stipulate their relationship since everything must be in accordance with the law.

C. YES because there is no prohibition under the law

D. NO because the law prohibits confusing relationship between debtors and creditors.

8.A borrowed money from B, and pledged a medal with diamonds as security. It was agreed that A was to pay the money loaned with interest at the end of one year.

Question: Before the expiration of the one-year period. is A allowed to pay his debt and recover the medal pledged?

A. As a matter of exception, NO because there was no demand yet

B. Generally. YES because B gave his consent to pre-pay the obligation.

C. Generally, NO because it is understood that the period of one year is established for the benefit of both the debtor and the creditor.

D. As a matter of exception, YES because the debt can be onerous.

9.When the court fixes a term, does it amend or modify the obligation concerned?

A. YES, It amends the obligation because the court exercises its discretion in fixing a term.

B. NO It does not amend the obligation because the judge can be one-sided and the intention of the parties cannot be subjected top judicial prerogative.

C. YES, It amends the obligation because the law is deemed to be part and parcel of any contract.

D. NO, It does not amend the obligation because the court only enforces the implied intention of the parties.