ECE Realty v Mandap_Digest

ECE Realty v Mandap G.R. No. 196182. September 1, 2014 Petitioner: ECE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., vs. Respondent: Rachel . Mandap !acts: Petitioner ECE Realt" is a corporation en#a#ed in the $%ildin# and de&elop'ent o( condo'ini%' %nits. )o'eti'e in *++, it started the constr%ction o( a condo'ini%' pro-ect pro-ect called Central Par Condo'ini%' /%ildin# located in Pasa" Cit". 0o1e&er, printed ad&ertise'ents o( the condo'ini%' indicated that it 1ill $e constr%cted in Maati. In Dece'$er *++, Respondent Mandap $o%#ht a %nit (ro' the pro-ect, pa"in# reser&ation (ee, do1n pa"'ent and 'onthl" instal'ents. )i2 'onths later, Mandap and the representati&e o( the Petitioner e2ec%ted a Contract to )ell, 1here it 1as indicated that the pro-ect 1ill $e constr%cted in Pasa". In *++3, 'ore than t1o "ears a(ter the e2ec%tion e2ec%tion o( the Contract to )ell, respondent, thro%#h her co%nsel, 1rote petitioner a letter de'andin# the ret%rn o( P455,66.66, representin# representin# the pa"'ents she 'ade, on the #ro%nd #ro%nd that she s%$se7%entl" disco&ered that the condo'ini%' pro-ect 1as $ein# $%ilt in Pasa" Cit" and not in Maati Cit" as indicated in its printed ad&ertise'ents. 0o1e&er, instead o( ans1erin# Mandap8s letter, the petitioner sent her a 1ritten co''%nication dated in(or'in# her that her %nit is read" (or inspection and occ%panc".  Treatin#  Treatin# the the 1ritten co''%nication co''%nication as denial in petitioner8s petitioner8s part part o( her letter, Mandap 9led a co'plaint 1ith the E2panded National Capital Re#ion !ield Oce ;ENCR!O< o( the 0o%sin# and Land =se Re#%lator" /oard ;0L=R/< seein# the ann%l'ent o( her contract 1ith petitioner, the ret%rn o( her pa"'ents, and da'a#es. /%t ENCR!O dis'issed respondent8s co'plaint and r%led that the respondent (ailed to sho1 the le#al #ro%nds that consist o( a (ra%d%lent or 'alicio%s dealin# 1ith her $" the petitioner, s%ch as, the latter8s e'plo"'ent o( insidio%s 1ords or 'achinations 1hich ind%ced or entrapped her into the contract, 1itho%t 1hich, the respondent respondent 1o%ld not 1ant to $%" a %nit in the pro-ect. On appeal, the 0L=R/ /oard o( Co''issioners rendered -%d#'ent dis'issin# respondent8s co'plaint and ar'in# the decision o( the ENCR!O. The /oard o( Co''issioners held that 1hen the parties red%ced their contract in 1ritin#, their ri#hts and d%ties '%st $e (o%nd in their contract and neither part" can place a #reater o$li#ation than 1hat the contract pro&ides. A##rie&ed, respondent respondent 9led an appeal 1ith the Oce o( the President $%t it dis'issed the case and ar'ed in toto the decision o( the 0L=R/ /oard o( Co''issioners. Respondent then 9led an appeal at the CA 1here the CA decided in respondent8s respondent8s (a&o%r. The CA held that petitioner petitioner e'plo"ed (ra%d and 'achinations 'achinations to ind%ce respondent to enter into a contract

1ith it. The CA ordered the ann%l'ent o( the Contract to )ell $et1een $oth parties and ordered petitioner to ret%rn the s%' o( 'one" that respondent 'ade in the pro-ect startin# (ro' the reser&ation (ee paid $" the respondent. The CA also e2pressed do%$t on the d%e e2ec%tion o( the Contract to )ell $et1een the parties. 0ence, this petition $" ECE Realt" assailin# the decision o( the CA. Iss%e: >hether petitioner ECE Realt" co''itted (ra%d a#ainst respondent Mandap and i( so, 1hether s%ch (ra%d is s%cient #ro%nd to n%lli(" its contract 1ith respondent. 0eld: Yes, petitioner co''itted (ra%d $%t it 1as not s%cient to n%lli(" its contract 1ith petitioner. The )%pre'e Co%rt s%stained the decision o( the 0o%sin# and Land =se Ar$iter, the 0L=R/ /oard o( Co''issioners and the Oce o( the President. Petition #ranted. R%lin#: Article *?44 o( the sa'e Code pro&ides that @iBn order that (ra%d 'a" 'ae a contract &oida$le, it sho%ld $e serio%s and sho%ld not ha&e $een e'plo"ed $" $oth contractin# parties.  %rispr%dence has sho1n that in order to constit%te (ra%d that pro&ides $asis to ann%l contracts, it '%st (%l9l t1o conditions: *. The (ra%d '%st $e dolo causante or it '%st $e (ra%d in o$tainin# the consent o( the part". This is re(erred to as ca%sal (ra%d. The deceit '%st $e serio%s. The (ra%d is serio%s 1hen it is s%cient to i'press, or to lead an ordinaril" pr%dent person into error that 1hich cannot decei&e a pr%dent person cannot $e a #ro%nd (or n%llit". The circ%'stances o( each case sho%ld $e considered, tain# into acco%nt the personal conditions o( the &icti'. 5. The (ra%d '%st $e pro&en $" clear and con&incin# e&idence and not 'erel" $" a preponderance thereo(. In the present case, this Co%rt 9nds that petitioner is #%ilt" o( (alse representation o( a (act. This is e&idenced $" its printed ad&ertise'ents indicatin# that its s%$-ect condo'ini%' pro-ect is located in Maati Cit" 1hen, in (act, it is in Pasa" Cit". 0o1e&er, the Co%rt a#rees 1ith the 0o%sin# and Land =se Ar$iter, the 0L=R/ /oard o( Co''issioners, and the Oce o( the President, that the 'isrepresentation 'ade $" petitioner in its ad&ertise'ents does not constit%te ca%sal (ra%d since respondent (ailed to pro&e that the location o( the said pro-ect 1as the ca%sal consideration or the principal ind%ce'ent 1hich led her into $%"in# her %nit in the said condo'ini%' pro-ect. E&idence sho1s that respondent proceeded to si#n the Contract to )ell despite in(or'ation contained therein that the condo'ini%' is located in Pasa" Cit".

 This onl" 'eans that she still a#reed to $%" the s%$-ect propert" re#ardless o( the (act that it is located in a place diFerent (ro' 1hat she 1as ori#inall" in(or'ed. I( she had a pro$le' 1ith the propert"8s location, she sho%ld not ha&e si#ned the Contract to )ell and, instead, i''ediatel" raised this iss%e 1ith petitioner. /%t she did not. As correctl" o$ser&ed $" the Oce o( the President, it too respondent 'ore than t1o "ears (ro' the e2ec%tion o( the Contract to )ell to de'and the ret%rn o( the a'o%nt she paid on the #ro%nd that she 1as 'isled into $elie&in# that the s%$-ect propert" is located in Maati Cit". In the 'eanti'e, she contin%ed to 'ae pa"'ents.  The Co%rt is not pers%aded $" the r%lin# o( the CA 1hich e2presses do%$t on the d%e e2ec%tion o( the Contract to )ell. The (act re'ains that the said Contract to )ell 1as notariGed. It is settled that a$sent an" clear and con&incin# proo( to the contrar", a notariGed doc%'ent en-o"s the pres%'ption o( re#%larit" and is concl%si&e as to the tr%th(%lness o( its contents. The Co%rt does not a#ree that the pres%'ption o( re#%larit" accorded to the notariGed Contract to )ell 1as o&erco'e $" e&idence to the contrar". Respondent8s alle#ation that she si#ned the said Contract to )ell 1ith se&eral $lan spaces, and 1hich alle#edl" did not indicate the location o( the condo'ini%', 1as not s%pported $" proo(. The $asic r%le is that 'ere alle#ation is not e&idence and is not e7%i&alent to proo(.  The contention that Mandap si#ned the Contract to )ell in $lan, and thatB it 1as ECE Realt" that s%pplied the details on it is re'ara$l" thread$are (or no e&idence 1as s%$'itted to s%pport s%ch clai' in all the proceedin#s $e(ore the ENCR!O and the /oard o( Co''issioners. In an" case, e&en ass%'in# that petitioner8s 'isrepresentation consists o( (ra%d 1hich co%ld $e a #ro%nd (or ann%llin# their Contract to )ell, respondent8s act o( a2in# her si#nat%re to the said Contract, a(ter ha&in# ac7%ired no1led#e o( the propert"8s act%al location, can $e constr%ed as an i'plied rati9cation thereo(.