Scribd
Upload
76 views1 page

Case 1

Mr. Pyromaniac obtained two fire insurances for his house. During the year, Mr. Pyromaniac's house was burned. The legal principle that prohibits Mr. Pyromaniac from collecting twice from his insurers in respect of the same loss event is

Uploaded by

PHILL BITUIN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
76 views1 page

Case 1

Mr. Pyromaniac obtained two fire insurances for his house. During the year, Mr. Pyromaniac's house was burned. The legal principle that prohibits Mr. Pyromaniac from collecting twice from his insurers in respect of the same loss event is

Uploaded by

PHILL BITUIN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

97.G.R. No. 126013.

February 12, 1997


SPOUSES THEIS vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation is the owner of three (3) adjacent parcels of
land. Adjacent to parcel no. 3, which is the lot covered by TCT No. 15684, is a vacant lot denominated as
parcel no. 4. Calsons Development constructed a two-storey house on parcel no. 3. In a survey
conducted in 1985, the two idle lands (parcel nos. 1 and 2) were mistakenly surveyed to be located on
parcel no. 4, which was not owned by private respondent. Unaware of the mistake, Calsons Development
through its authorized representative, one Atty. Tarcisio S. Calilung, sold said parcel no. 4 to petitioners.
When petitioners returned to the Philippines, they went to Tagaytay to look over the vacant lots and to
plan the construction of their house thereon, they discovered that parcel no. 4 was owned by another
person. They also discovered that the lots actually sold to them were parcel nos. 2 and 3 covered by TCT
Nos. 15516 and 15684, respectively. Parcel no. 3, however, could not have been sold to the petitioners by
the private respondents as a two-storey house, the construction cost of which far exceeded the price paid
by the petitioners, had already been built thereon even prior to the execution of the contract between the
disputing parties. To remedy the mistake, private respondent offered parcel nos. 1 and 2 covered by TCT
Nos. 15515 and 15516, respectively, as these two were precisely the two vacant lots which private
respondent owned and intended to sell when it entered into the transaction with petitioners. Petitioners
adamantly rejected the good faith offer.

Issue: Whether or not the Contract of Sale between Spouses Theis and Calsons corporation is voidable.

Ruling: Yes. Under Article 1390, contracts are voidable or annullable when the consent is vitiated by
mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud. Calsons obviously committed an honest mistake
in selling parcel no. 4 for it is quite impossible to sell the lot in question as the same is not owned by
Calsons. The good faith of the private respondent is evident in the fact that when the mistake was
discovered, it immediately offered two other vacant lots to the petitioners or to reimburse them with twice
the amount paid. That petitioners refused either option left the private respondent with no other choice but
to file an action for the annulment of the deed of sale on the ground of mistake. A contract may be
annulled where the consent of one of the contracting parties was procured by mistake, fraud, intimidation,
violence, or undue influence. Art. 1331 of the New Civil Code provides for the situations whereby mistake
may invalidate consent. It states:

"Art. 1331. In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer to the substance of the thing
which is the object of the contract, or to those conditions which have principally moved one or both parties
to enter into the contract."

The concept of error in this article must include both ignorance, which is the absence of knowledge
with respect to a thing, and mistake properly speaking, which is a wrong conception about said thing, or a
belief in the existence of some circumstance, fact, or event, which in reality does not exist. In both cases,
there is a lack of full and correct knowledge about the thing. The mistake committed by the private
respondent in selling parcel no. 4 to the petitioners falls within the second type. Verily, such mistake
invalidated its consent and as such, annulment of the deed of sale is proper.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy