Statement A: Contracts intended to defraud creditors can be rescinded under Art. 1191, NCC. Statement B: If the real intention of the parties could not be ascertained in a principa... Statement A: Contracts intended to defraud creditors can be rescinded under Art. 1191, NCC. Statement B: If the real intention of the parties could not be ascertained in a principal contract, the same shall be considered void. Which statement is true: Only Statement 'A' is true, Both statements are true, Neither is true, or Only Statement 'B' is true?
Understand the Problem
The question is asking about the validity of two legal statements regarding contracts. It seeks to determine which of the statements is true or false based on legal principles, specifically related to the rescission of contracts intended to defraud creditors and the ascertainment of parties' intentions in a principal contract.
Answer
Neither is true.
Neither Statement A nor Statement B is true.
Answer for screen readers
Neither Statement A nor Statement B is true.
More Information
Article 1191 of the Philippine Civil Code does not specifically mention rescission for fraud against creditors; it deals with rescission due to breach of obligations. Furthermore, Article 1318 (not mentioned in the search results but related to contract formation) implies that contracts with unascertainable intent are not necessarily void as per typical legal interpretations.
Tips
Readers might mistakenly conflate Article 1191 with other articles addressing fraud or assume that unascertainable intent automatically renders a contract void without further legal context.
Sources
- Philippines Republic Act 386 (Civil Code) | Trans-Lex.org - trans-lex.org
- CAMP JOHN HAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, PETITIONER ... - elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
AI-generated content may contain errors. Please verify critical information
