Practice question
A lessee consistently believes a rental increase is invalid, protests it from the start, but deliberately pays while it is presumed effective to avoid disruption. The lessee later obtains a judicial ruling and pursues a contractual refund. An opponent says every such payment necessarily resulted from a mistaken understanding of law. Which answer accords with Domestic Petroleum?
- Every protested payment is necessarily a qualifying legal mistake
- The actual reason for payment matters; deliberate payment while maintaining the legal objection is not automatically mistaken belief, and the contractual basis must be assessed
- No legal remedy can ever exist after payment under protest
- Article 2155 automatically replaces every contract
- The later ruling proves the payer earlier believed the opposite of the protest
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles 3 and 2154–2156: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- Domestic Petroleum Retailer v. MIAA, GR 210641, March 27, 2019, main decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/mar2019/gr_210641_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.