Theis vs CA Digest
Short Description
Theis vs CA Digest...
Description
February 12, 1997 SPOUSES HEINZRICH THEIS AND BETTY THEIS, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE ELEUTERIO GUERRERO, ACTING PRESIDING UDGE, BRANCH !"III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGAYTAY CITY, CALSONS DE"ELOP#ENT CORPORATION, respondents. Fa$%&' Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation is the owner of three (3) adjacent parcels of land (parcel nos.1, 2 and 3). All three parcels of land are situated in a!a"ta" Cit". Adjacent to parcel no.3 is a vacant lot denominated as parcel no. #. $n 1%&', Private respondent constructed a twosrore" house on parcel no. 3 and the two other lots remained idle. $n a surve" conducted in 1%&', parcel no. 3 was erroneousl" indicated to e covered " the C of parcel no. 1, while the parcel no. 1 and parcel no. 2 were mista*enl" surve"ed to e located on parcel no. # instead. +naware of the mista*e private respondent sold said parcel no. # to petitioners on ctoer 2-, 1%&. +pon e/ecution of the Deed of 0ale, private respondent delivered Cs to petitioners who, on ctoer 2&, 1%&, immediatel" re!istered re!istered the same with the e!istr" of Deeds of o f a!a"ta" a!a"ta" Cit". Cit". $ndicated on the Deed of 0ale as purchase price was the amount of P13,.. he actual price price a!reed upon and paid, paid, however, was was P#&-,.. P#&-,.. his amount was not immediatel" paid to private respondent4 rather, it was deposited in escrow in an interestearin! account account in its favor with the +nited Coconut Planters 5an* in 6a*ati Cit". he P#&-,. in escrow was released to, and received ", private respondent on Decemer #, 1%&. hereafter, hereafter, petitioners petitioners did not immediatel" immediatel" occup" and and ta*e possession possession of of the two (2) idle parcels of land purchased from private respondent. $nstead, petitioners went to 7erman". $n 1%%, petitioners discovered that parcel no. # was owned " another person. he" also discovered discovered that that the lots actuall" actuall" sold to them them were parcel parcel nos. 2 and and 3. o o remed" the mista*e, private respondent o8ered parcel nos. 1 and 2 as these two were precisel" the two vacant lots which private respondent owned and intended to sell. Petitioners rejected the !ood faith o8er. Private respondent made another o8er, this time the return return of an amount doule the price paid " petitioners. petitioners. Petitioners still refused. Private respondent was then compelled to 9le an action for annulment of deed of sale and reconve"ance of the properties suject thereof. C and CA ruled in favor of Calsons Development. C: C: 7oin! " the facts estalished " defendants; evidence, it is clear that defendants did not intend to u" the parcel of land where plainti8;s house stood as defendant 5ett" heis declared in her testimon" that the" wanted to u" the parcel at the ri!ht side of plainti8;s house where she and her husand would construct their house.
he law itself e/plicitl" reco!nio? the deed of sale can e annulled. @eld: es. Art. 13% of the ?ew Civil Code provides: BArt. 13%. he followin! contracts are voidale or annullale, even thou!h there ma" have een no dama!e to the contractin! parties: (2) hose where the consent is vitiated " mista*e, violence, intimidation, undue inuence, or fraud.
$n the case at ar, the private respondent oviousl" committed an honest mista*e in sellin! parcel no. #. As correctl" noted " the Court of Appeals, it is =uite impossile for said private respondent to sell the lot in =uestion as the same is not owned " it. he !ood faith of the private respondent is evident in the fact that when the mista*e was discovered, it immediatel" o8ered two other vacant lots to the petitioners or to reimurse them with twice the amount paid. hat petitioners refused either option left the private respondent with no other choice ut to 9le an action for the annulment of the deed of sale on the !round of mista*e. Art. 1331 of the ?ew Civil Code provides for the situations where" mista*e ma" invalidate consent. $t states: BArt. 1331. $n order that mista*e ma" invalidate consent, it should refer to the sustance of the thin! which is the oject of the contract, or to those conditions which have principall" moved one or oth parties to enter into the contract.B
olentino e/plains that the concept of error in this article must include oth i!norance, which is the asence of *nowled!e with respect to a thin!, and mista*e properl" spea*in!, which is a wron! conception aout said thin!, or a elief in the e/istence of some circumstance, fact, or event, which in realit" does not e/ist. $n oth cases, there is a lac* of full and correct *nowled!e aout the thin!. he mista*e committed " the private respondent in sellin! parcel no. # to the petitioners falls within the second t"pe. eril", such mista*e invalidated its consent and as such, annulment of the deed of sale is proper. he petitioners cannot e justi9ed in their insistence that parcel no. 3, upon which private respondent constructed a twostore" house, e !iven to them in lieu of
parcel no. #. he cost of construction in 1%&' for the said house (P1,',.) far e/ceeds the amount paid " the petitioners to the private respondent (P#&-,.). 6oreover, the trial court, in =uestionin! private respondent;s witness, Att". arciso Calilun! (who is also its authori
View more...
Comments
