Practice question
A supplier has an obtainable implied-in-fact contract action against a funding organization. The user institution acquired the delivered furniture lawfully under its agreement with that organization. Can the supplier shift liability to the user solely by asserting Article 22?
- Not on those facts; both lawful acquisition and the obtainable remedy matter
- Yes, every user automatically owes the supplier’s contract price
- Yes, implied contracts never count as other remedies
- Yes, a funding arrangement is always unlawful
- Yes, Article 22 automatically substitutes debtors
Legal references
- Civil Code, Articles 19-23, 26, 28, 31-33, 1314, 2177, 2183 and 2187: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
- University of the Philippines v. Philab Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 152411, September 29, 2004, MAIN decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/sep2004/gr_152411_2004.html
- BDO Unibank, Inc. v. Barcellano y Riego, G.R. No. 261264, February 12, 2026, MAIN decision: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2026/feb2026/gr_261264_2026.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.