Practice question
A claimant says a defendant benefited from delivered equipment and therefore must pay under Article 22. The evidence establishes that the defendant lawfully acquired it under a valid arrangement with a separate funding party, and the claimant has an obtainable contract action against that funding party. Which analysis follows UP v. Philab?
- Benefit alone conclusively proves unjust enrichment
- The valid basis for acquisition and the claimant's specific remedy defeat the asserted subsidiary theory on these facts
- The defendant must pay twice solely because it possesses equipment
- Every third-party arrangement is automatically fraudulent
- Article 22 eliminates every contract
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles 22, 2154 and 2163: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- University of the Philippines v. Philab Industries, GR 152411, September 29, 2004, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_152411_2004.html
- NPC v. Benguet Electric Cooperative, GR 218378, June 14, 2021, main resolution: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/67577
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.