Practice question
A valid services contract obliges Vina to prepare a report. Separately, Wanda receives a mistaken duplicate payment with no entitlement to it, satisfying Article 2154. Wanda says she may keep it because she never agreed to refund it. Which analysis is correct?
- Both duties require an additional notarized refund agreement.
- Neither duty can exist before judgment.
- Wanda’s lack of consent defeats every possible obligation.
- Vina’s duty arises from contract; Wanda’s return duty arises from quasi-contract despite the absence of an agreed refund promise.
- Both duties must be classified as criminal penalties.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, articles 1157–1162,2142,2154,2176–2177.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.