You are on page 1of 2

Fule vs CA

1. Fule was a banker and a jeweler at the same
time, acquired a 10-hectare property in Tanay,
Rizal which used to be under the name of Fr.
Jacobe. The latter had mortgaged earlier to the
Rural Bank and the petitioner asked Dischoso
and Mendoza to look for a buyer who might be
interested for the property. The two found Dr.
Cruz. Petitioner had shown interest in buying a
diamond earrings owned by Dr. Cruz.
Petitioners offer to buy the jewelry but dr. Cruz
declined for it. Petitioner made another bid to
buy. Petitioner also inspected the jewelry and
made a sketch. Dr. Cruz, again refuse to sell.
2. subsequently, negotiation for barter of the
jewelry and Tanay property ensued. Dr.Cruz
requested Atty. Belarmino to check the
property and found out that no sale or barter
was feasible.
3. petitioner executed a deed of redemption.
Two deeds were executed by the fact that the
deed of sale was notarized ahead of time. Atty.
Belarmino was aware that she and petitioner
had previously agreed to exchange the pair of
earrings for Tanay property.
4. Petitioner paid the two agents and some
pieces of jewelry. On the same day, at 8 oclock
in the evening petitioner arrived at the house of
Atty. Belarmino complaining that the jewelry
given to him was fake. Dischoso went to the
house of Atty. Belarmino to find petitioner
already demonstrating with a tester that the
earrings were fake. Petitioner accused Dischoso
and Mendoza of deceiving him. They countered
that petitioner could not have been fooled
because he had vast experience regarding
jewelry. Petitioner took back the money and
jewelry he had given them.
5. The group decided to test the jewelry to a
jeweler. The jeweler. declared it counterfeit.
Petitioner filed a complaint in RTC San Pablo
against the respondent, that the contract of
sale over the Tanay property be declared null
and void on the ground of fraud and deceit.
Issue: whether or not the contract of sale over
the Tanay property must be declared null and
void on the ground of fraud and deceit.
1. The civil code provides that contracts are
perfected by mere consent. The parties are
bound not only to the fulfillment of what has
been expressly stipulated but also to all the
consequences which accrdg to their nature,
may be in keeping with good faith, usage and
law. A contract of sale was perfected at the
moment there is a meeting of the minds upon
the thing which is the object of teh contract and
upon the price. Being consensual, a contract of
sale has the force of law between the
contracting parties and they are expected to
abide in good faith by their respective
contractual commitments. Civil code requires
the embodiment of certain contracts in a public
instrument, is only for convenience and
registration of the instrument only adversely
affects third parties. Non compliance does not
adversely affect the validity of the contract nor
the contractual rights and obligations of the
2. in this case, there was a meeting of the minds
between petitioner and Dr. Cruz. Theya re
bound by the contract unless there are reasons
or circumstances that warrant its nullification.
The contract can be voided in accordance with
law so as to compel the parties to restore to
each other the things that have been the
subject of the contract with their fruits and the
price with interest.
3. moreover, petitioner did not clearly alleged
mistake as a ground for nullification of contract
of sale. Even assuming, petitioner cannot invoke
the same. Mistake must refer to the substance
of the thing that is the object of teh contract or
those condition which ahve principally moved
one or both parties to enter a contract.
4. petitioner himself could not be excused for
mistake on account that he was a banker-
jeweler that he was an expert on matters. He
had an intellectual capacity and the business as
a banker. He was also afforded the reasonable
opportunity to examine the jewelry as he in fact
accepted them when asked by Dr. Cruz if he
was satisfied. Lastly, by taking the jwelry
outside the bank, petitioner executed an act
which is consistent as an exercise of ownership.