private respondents.

Although it is a well-established rule that the

matter of credibility lies within the province of the trial court, such
rule does not apply when the witness credibility has been put in
serious doubt, such as when there appears on the record some fact
or circumstance of weight and influence, which has been overlooked
or the significance of which has been misinterpreted.
Contracts; Article 1332 of the Civil Code was intended for the
protection of a party to a contract who is at a disadvantage due to
his illiteracy, ignorance, mental weakness or other handicap, and
contemplates a situation wherein a contract has been entered into,
but the consent of one of the parties is vitiated by mistake or fraud
committed by the other contracting party.Article 1332 was
intended for the protection of a party to a contract who is at a
disadvantage due to his illiteracy, ignorance, mental weakness or
other handicap. This
349

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 8, 1999

349

Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals

article contemplates a situation wherein a contract has been
entered into, but the consent of one of the parties is vitiated by
mistake or fraud committed by the other contracting party. This is
apparent from the ordering of the provisions under Book IV, Title II,
Chapter 2, section 1 of the Civil Code, from which article 1332 is
taken. Article 1330 states thatA contract where consent is given
through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud
is voidable.
Same; 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; Article 1332 assumes that the
consent of the contracting party imputing the mistake or fraud was
given, although vitiated, and does not cover a situation where there
is a complete absence of consent.This is immediately followed by
provisions explaining what constitutes mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence, or fraud sufficient to vitiate consent.
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. Fraud, on the other hand, is present when,