PART 13 - DEAN ULAN’S VIDEO LECTURE
Exceptions:
001.MOV to 005.MOV
Capacity to Enter Into Contract (1327 - 1329) and Vices of Consent
● What the law provides are the persons or the law identifies the persons who are
incapacitated to enter into a contract
● Article 1327 — The following cannot give consent to a contract: (1) Unemancipated
minors; (2) Insane or demented persons, and deaf-mutes who do not know how to
write.
● When a person who either is a minor, who is insane, or demented person, or one who
is deaf-mute, who does not know how tor read and write contracts they enter into
would be existing. As a matter of fact, it is valid. The only problem is it is defective
which means this is one of the voidable contracts.
1. Minors - persons who are below 18 years of age
The provisions says unemancipated minor. The reason for this, previously, before the
amended of the law relative to age of minority or age of majority was 21 years old. Meaning
the age of majority before the law was subsequently amended was 21 years old. Those who
were below 21 years old were minors. And generally, they were unemancipated. However,
during the civil law, these unemancipated minors may be emancipated. So they acquire legal
capacity even during their minority and this happens usually when they get married. So,
validity of marriage before would require only the parties to be at least 14-16 and 16-18. it did
not require them to be 21. However, now for marriage to be valid, it must be contracted by
two persons who are at least 18 years old. And that is also the present age of majority. There is
no longer any minor who may be emancipated by marriage. Wala ng unemancipated minors.
Once a minor enters into a contract, it would therefore result in voidable contract. Now, I
want to stress to you that the defect in contract because of the minority by one of the parties
may be assailed only by the minor or guardian or parent. It cannot be assailed by the party
who is capacitated. Because sometimes, it really is what leads to a decision that is wrong when
the case is presented, obviously describing a situation where a minor entered into a contract
but the action for the annulment of such a contract because of the defect brought about by the
minority is instituted by the capacitated party. So generally, it cannot be done.
There are instances where there are certain contracts although entered into by a minor, would
be perfectly valid. So Hindi defective, Hindi voidable. When would this be?
A. When the minor is represented by his guardian (legal guardian natural
guardian)
B. When the minor misrepresents his age - This is very important because there
are several cases where the Supreme Court did explain how this could occur. We
cannot just rely on an instance when here is a minor who tells the party with whom
he intends to enter into a contract that is already of a majority age. Thereafter, it
could be said that that type of contract is now covered by this exception. Here you
have to consider the type of misrepresentation that the minor did. It should be what
we refer to as an active misrepresentation as distinguished from a constructive
misrepresentation. The misrepresentation by the minor of his age must be active and
not merely constructive.
Why is it important?
Mercado v. Espiritu
Siasuan v. Alcantara
Hermosa v. Zobel
Supreme Court: When a minor's physical development which could mislead the other party
into believing that he was of age, the minor is said to be guilty of estoppel and may not
annul the contract on the ground of minority.
JBL Reyes who did not agree that estoppel could work against a minor. Hence, in a
subsequent case, after all these three came out, when JBL was still the member of the Highest
Court, he was given an opportunity to be a ponente where the same issue was raised. Can the
minor be subject to estoppel if he misrepresents his age thereby precluding or preventing him
from filing an action for annulment?
Yang v. Tecson
JBL Reyes apparently did not agree that estoppel could work against the minor. He said that
“the minor could not be bound by his misrepresentation. Under the principle of estoppel, the
liability arising from the misrepresentation has its juridical source in the capacity of the
person making the misrepresentation. In order estoppel to apply, the misrepresentation
should be made by person who has the capacity to do so in regard to binding himself, thus, he
added, if the person making the misrepresentation cannot bind himself such as a minor, by
contract he cannot also be bound by any misrepresentation he may have made in connection
therewith.”
JBL is saying that in order for estoppel to apply, to prevent one from filing an action to annul,
to avoid the contract, he must be capacitated to be bound by the contract. E minor Hindi nga
eh. So sabi niya, hindi pupwede i-apply ang estoppel. So what therefore is the current
jurisprudence?
Braganza v. Villabrile
Supreme Court: in order to accommodate both the opinion, the jurisprudence and the
cases of Mercado and Yang. Two different types of misrepresentations:
● Active misrepresentation - That the Mercado ruling only applies if the
minor is guilty of active misrepresentation such as when the documents
signed by the minor specifically, nakalagay mismo dun, stated he was of age.
● Constructive misrepresentation - If the minor is guilty only passive or
constructive misrepresentation such as when he simply failed to disclose his
minority in the document that he signed. Wala nakalaann na he is of age. It is
completely silent and he merely sign it, the minor can still annul the contract
on the ground of minority.
So that means the Mercado ruling was held inapplicable in a case where the minor did not
pretend to be of age at the time the contract was made and his minority was well-known to
the other party. Hence, the contract may still be annulled.
Second requirement in order that a minor may be prevented from still raising the issue of the
defect in a contract due to his minority, aside from active misrepresentation, obviously the
second is that: the minor should appear physically to have the attributes already of
an adult. Ibig sabihin, mukha ng matanda. Even if the minor made active
misrepresentation, that obviously his physical attributes will lead no one to believe him to be
of majority age.
For example, may lumapit sayong 12 years old, halata mong 12 years old. “You want to buy
my car?” I am already of majority age. In that case, do you think the ruling will now be
applied where you can cite against that minor in preventing him from having the contract
annulled? Ay hindi na. Tanga ka eh.
Summary:
In order for the exception to apply, there are two requirements:
● The minor must have made active misrepresentation - so he expressly stated
that he was of majority age
● The physical attributes of the minor should make one believe that he is
already of age.
C) Contracts involving the sale and delivery of necessities to minors. (Art
1389) —
All persons who are authorized in this Code to obligate themselves, may enter into a
contract of sale, saving the modifications contained in the following articles.
Where necessaries are those sold and delivered to a minor or other person without
capacity to act, he must pay a reasonable price therefore. Necessaries are those
referred to in article 290.
What are necessities?
This usually would be those that are required by law as support for minors, or
incapacitated individual. This would be food, clothing, shelter which includes
education and medical expenses.
So if the minor enters into contracts in regard to the delivery of these necessities that
he requires, of course, the contract would be valid. Because if you would also add this
type of contracts to be defective entered into by minors, edi wala ng magbebenta ng
pagkain sa mga minors.
D) Savings Deposit - Banko Central made the capacity to open a savings account
even for minors who are 9 years of above.
2. Insane or Demented person
They do not have the mental capability to really comprehend what they are entering into. But
it is very important that they must in such a state at the moment they enter into the
agreement. The moment of the perfection of the contract, they MUST be proven to be insane
or demented. Because if the contract the contract was entered into, a time when they are able
to really know what they are entering into, there are certain insane or demented person who
sometimes gets this light of understanding which is referred into by law as lucid interval and
it is at that moment when they entered into a contract. Pag oo nila, pag pirma nila, his
representative can ask for the annulment of the contract? No.
It is very important that it is not just proving the party being insane or demented that but it
must be proven that he was in such a mental stage at the very moment of the perfection of the
contract. If it was before or after, but there was no proof that at the moment at the perfection
he was in such a stage, then, the contract is perfectly valid.
Note: Sanity is presumed. The parties who entered into a contract are considered to be of
sound mind. It is for the party alleging insanity who should be able to prove that he was in
such a stage at the moment of the perfection of the contract. It has to be refuted. In the
absence of proof, then the party is presumed to be of sound mind. Hence, no defect in the
contract. He wants to refute and annul it, he must show proof that at the time he agreed at the
time of perfection, that he was insane.
Note also: The provision of the law includes that at the time a person is drunk or hypnotic
spell will also result to a voidable contract.
When we are considering the presumption of sanity or being in sound mind in all instances,
and in order that insanity may be asserted to annul a contract, it is to be proven to have
existed at the time the contract was entered into perfected or consent. These presumptions
however DOES NOT APPLY in cases of individuals who are already under guardianship,
precisely because of their state of mind. If the person who is under guardianship precisely
because of being of unsound mind, a contract enters into this time, the presumption is
that he entered the contract during that time when he was insane. The
presumption is reversed. Now, this party who could assert the defect in the contract
because it was entered into during time when he was insane is what the law presumes. It is for
the other party who is now insisting on enforcing the contract that the contract is perfectly
valid to SHOW PROOF that the insane was sane or was of sound mind at the time he entered
into the agreement. There is now the necessity for the person wanting to enforce the contract
to show proof that the agreement was entered into by the insane person during his lucid
interval. So nababaliktad lang yan.
006.MOV to 010.MOV
3. Deaf mutes who do not know how to read or write
● Illiteracy (i.e. does not know how to read or write) on its own is NOT incapacity. It
has to be accompanied by the fact of the person being deaf mute.
● If he is deaf mute, and, at the same time, illiterate, he is incapacitated.
● Pag deaf mute pero marunong magbasa, marunong magsulat, he is not
incapacitated.
● Hindi marunong magbasa, hindi marunong magsulat pero hindi naman deaf mute
= not incapacitated
● The person described in the third exception must be a deaf mute AND illiterate.
Illiteracy, in a way, has some effect insofar as the contracting party is concerned.
Effect: Presumption of the parties having fully understood the contents of the agreement they
entered into is what is upheld. Ibigsabihin, yan ang presumption sa batas. Pag pumasok ka
sa kontrata, ang presumption niyan naintindihan mo ang lahat ng nakasulat diyan at ang
implikasyon para sa inyong contract – kayong mga contracting parties.
If there was fraud, deceit or concealment, [may tinago, mayroon kang hindi nalaman], it is
for you to show proof of this. [Hindi ka naintindihan], it is for you to show proof of this to be
able to avoid the contract, which is now also referred to as voidable because your consent
was vitiated by fraud, concealment or misrepresentation.
However, if the party you entered into a contract is illiterate but NOT deafmute, is he
capacitated? Yes. However, the presumption discussed does not apply. In this particular case,
if he is a party who did not understand the contents of the contract he entered into because of
his illiteracy, the other party who is wanting to enforce the agreement must show proof that
he thoroughly explained to the illiterate, or that the illiterate was made to fully understand
the extent of the agreement. Because the failure of that party insisting on the enforcement of
the contract to show proof that the illiterate was apprised fully of the intent, content and
effects of the contract, then the illiterate could also avoid the contract. So the presumption is
hindi niya naintindihan yung kontrata. Therefore, there was vitiation of consent. Now, to
refute that, the party wanting to enforce must show proof.
That presumption is what is expressed in Art. 1332.
ARTICLE 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in
a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person
enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully
explained to the former.
Summary:
Deaf mute who does not know how to read or write = inpacitated
Deaf mute but who does know how to read or write = capacitated
Illiterate but not a deaf mute = capacitated
Presumption: that the contract was entered into by the parties fully understanding the
contents, the implications, the rights and obligations created thereby. There is therefore the
burden on the party who wants to avoid it by alleging fraud or misrepresentation or mistake
to show proof that it was not fully understood or explained to him.
However, if the person is illiterate, this time the presumption is he entered into a contract
which he did not fully understand or appreciate. Therefore, he could allege mistake or fraud.
To refute it, it is on the part of the other to show proof that it was explained, it was
interpreted, it was clearly made for him to understand the content of the agreement.
WHO ARE THE INCAPACITATED PERSONS?
1. Minors
2. Insane or demented person
3. Deaf mutes who do not know how to read or write
Any contract they enter into would result to a valid but defective contract, which means that
the parties (i.e. the minors or their representatives, the deafmutes who do not know how to
read or write or their representatives, the insane or demented persons or their
representatives) are the parties who may assail the defect in the contract, therefore avoiding
the same. It may NOT be assailed by the person who is fully capacitated to enter into the
agreement.
In the Rules of Court, specifically under Rule 93, Section 2, it identifies persons referred to as
incompetents. Who are these INCOMPETENTS?
1. Persons under civil interdiction
2. Hospitalized lepers, prodigals, deaf and mutes
3. Persons of unsound mind
4. Persons who cannot take care of themselves because of age, disease or weak mind
These are the parties for whom a judicial guardian may be appointed. If you do have a relative
who is in such a situation, or he squarely fits the description of any of those four individuals
enumerated, you may ask the court to protect him for the appointment of a judicial guardian.
The enumeration includes the incapacitated persons enumerated in Art. 1337.
Not all these incompetents in Rule 93, Section 2 are incapacitated; although all
the incapacitated mentioned in Art. 1337 are incompetents.
Issue: Are these incompetents in Rule 93, Section 2 incapacitated to enter into a contract? Of
course if they are incompetent, and at the same time referred to as incapacitated (e.g.
unsound mind, deaf mutes who do not know how to read or write), obviously they are
incapacitated. How about those who are not? Ex. Hospitalized lepers, prodigals (prodigal =
spendthrift; magastos, may sakit sa pera, burara sa pera), persons who are of age, disease,
weak mind. They are not necessarily incapacitated. What would then be the status of the
contract these incompetents but not incapacitated enter into? Would it also result to a
voidable contract?
GR: Incompetents but are not incapacitated may enter into a contract which
would not result to a defect therein.
However, if these incompetents are already subject to a guardian [i.e. a judicial guardian has
already been appointed for their stead] and still, they enter into contract on their own [they
did not refer the matter or make it known to their guardian or did not allow the guardian to
participate in the contract], then the contract is defective.
In effect, if these incompetents do have guardians already appointed by the courts, they are
also incapacitated. They can no longer enter into a valid contract without the guardians. They
have to enter into it through their guardians.
Yason v. Arciaga, 449 SCRA 458; Ladicho v. Sia, 576 SCRA 602
Age or infirmities, if you go back to 1337, are not in any way grounds to make them
incapacitated. If this age, matandang matanda na, let’s say 95 or 100 years old. Ordinarily,
they are still capacitated to enter into contracts. Wala namang maximum age of capacity to
enter into contracts. May minimum; dapat of 18 or above.
However, SC held that when such age or infirmity impair his mental faculties to the extent
that he is unable to properly, intelligently and fairly understand the provisions of the said
contract, or to such extent as to prevent him from properly, intelligently and fairly protecting In sum, what would be the difference between incapacity and disqualification
his property rights, he is also considered to be incapacitated. to enter into contracts?

There has to be proof of the effect of old age or sickness that in effect impairs his intellectual INCAPACITY
(ART. 1327)
capability to fully understand the contents of the contract. ex. May covid. Can a patient who is
● Contracts entered into by an
afflicted by covid still enter into a contract? Yes. But it may be shown that if the virus affects incapacitated: voidable
the mental capability of the individual to understand fully the contents of the agreement he is ● It restrains the existence of the right
entering into, then he is incapacitated. to contract
● It is based on subjective
circumstances of a person (insanity,
011.MOV to 015.MOV minority, deaf-mute, illiteracy)
DISQUALIFICATION
(ART. 1329)
● Contracts entered into by a disqualified
person: void
● It restrains the very right itself
● Based upon public policy and morality

3. Civil Interdiction, Rule 93, Section 2

● For purposes of knowing who these persons disqualified under the law, you have
● Once a person is convicted and sentenced to suffer the penalty attached to it,
there is what we call “the accessory penalty” of civil interdiction.
● Effects of civil interdiction: The offender, during the time of his sentence, he
will be incapacitated or would not have the right to exercise the following:
1. Parental authority or guardianship
● either as to the person or property of any ward.
● That is why, parent/s who are convicted lose the right to have
parental authority over their children.
2. Marital authority
3. Management of his/her property
4. Disposition of his property by any or any conveyance inter vivos
● conveyance that will take effect during his lifetime; but if it is
mortis causa, it will take effect only after his death. then, it will
be valid.
them (most of them) enumerated in the following:
1. Art. 1491 of the Civil Code
“The following persons cannot acquire by purchase, even at a public or judicial
auction, either in person or through the mediation of another:
(1) The guardian, the property of the person or persons who may be under his
guardianship;
(2) Agents, the property whose administration or sale may have been intrusted to
them, unless the consent of the principal has been given;
(3) Executors and administrators, the property of the estate under administration;
(4) Public officers and employees, the property of the State or of any subdivision
thereof, or of any government-owned or controlled corporation, or institution, the
administration of which has been intrusted to them; this provision shall apply to
judges and government experts who, in any manner whatsoever, take part in the
sale;

● Review RPC, Article 41 and 34
● Persons under in civil interdiction are in effect, partially
incapacitated to enter into contracts of which may involve the
exercise of those rights that were enumerated (parental authority,
marital authority, etc.) Note: Baka raw ilabas ni Dean sa exam.
(5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of superior and inferior courts,
and other officers and employees connected with the administration of justice, the
property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution before the court within
whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their respective functions; this
prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply to lawyers,
with respect to the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in
which they may take part by virtue of their profession;

(6) Any others specially disqualified by law.”

 Vices of Consent
2. Art. 87 of the Family Code
● In order for consent to be valid, there are the following requisites:
“Every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the
spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts, which the spouses 1. It must have been intelligent
may give to each other on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall ▪ There should have been no mistake.
also apply to persons living together as husband and wife without a valid
marriage.” 2. It must be free and voluntary
▪ There must have been no violence, intimidation, or undue influence na
3. Art. 1490 of the Civil Code ginamit para pumasok ang isa sa kasunsuan/kontrata.

“The husband and the wife cannot sell property to each other, except:
(1) When a separation of property was agreed upon in the marriage settlements; or
(2) When there has been a judicial separation of property under article 191.”
● Take note: The disqualifications above, are not absolute disqualifications in
entering contracts, some of them, will only be disqualification from entering
into a particular contract with a particular person (e.g. the prohibition on
donation only applies between husband and wife; and not the wife with her best
friend.
Article 1330 - Vices of Consent
“A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence,
or fraud is voidable.”
3. It must be spontaneous
▪ There must be no fraud committed.
4. It must be real
▪ Here comes in what we call “vices of declaration” that it is not
simulated, it is not a joke; there is the animus or the intention to be
bound.
Article 1331 - Mistake
“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.
Mistake as to the identity or qualifications of one of the parties will vitiate consent only
when such identity or qualifications have been the principal cause of the contract.
A simple mistake of account shall give rise to its correction.”

● Under Art. 1390, there are two ways by which a contract may be classified as defective
voidable:
1. If it is entered into by an incapacitated person
2. When consent of the party is vitiated by any of the vices of consent.
● In regard to vices of consent, this is what you call now, they will be resulting to what you
call “voidable”
● There are two ways in which a mistake may be committed in the contract:
1. Mistake as to the substance of the thing, which is the object of the contract.
2. Those mistakes in the conditions which have principally moved one or both parties
to enter into a contract - Art. 1331.
▪ ‘Yung nag-engganyo kaya ka pumasok sa kontratang ganito, because you
were made aware that this type of condition it turned out not existing.

● There are also vices of declaration, wherein it will result into a “simulation of ▪ Mistake in Art. 1331, includes ignorance although they’re not really the same.
contracts” the validity or invalidity, or the defects itself, will be discussed later.
Mistake Ignorance
● We have to distinguish vices of consent from vices of the declaration of intention ● refers to a false notion ● refers to the complete
in contracts. about such a matter. (e.g. absence of any notion about
mistake in the substance a particular matter of the
 of a thing)
Take note of the difference, according to Dean!
contract.
Note: It is important to distinguish error in quantetate from mistakes in accounting. In
the latter, generally, the contract remains valid subject to rectification of the mistake in
the computation. On the other hand, in the former, the contract is voidable. Ex. In the
computation of a condominium unit, 10k for 50 square meters, 300k, instead of 500k.
Can you avoid the contract? No, because there is only mistake in accounting. But if the
mistake pertains to the number of square meters, the contract is voidable.

There are 2 classifications of mistake:

(1) Mistake in manifestation - error in obstantibo
What are the requisites in order for a mistake to vitiate consent resulting in a
(2) Mistake in the formation or contents of the volition - either mistake of law or
voidable contract?
mistake of fact.

(1) It must be a past or present fact, not the future.

Under Art. 1331 of the Civil Code, there are four types of mistake as to object of the
contract:
(2) It must induce the parties.

(1) Error in corpore is a mistake over the identity of the thing. One thing is
(3) It must not be imputable to the party mistaken. It must be made in good faith. It
mistaken for another. What is the effect? The contract is not just voidable but void.
must be inadvertent and excusable, otherwise, it is tantamount to negligence.

(2) Error in substantia is a mistake over the essence or the substantial qualities of
(4) It must be a mistake of fact, not of law. In MOL, it would not result in a defect in
the thing which affects not the identity of the thing but the materials which compose
the consent. Art. 2 of the Civil Code provides: Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
it.

Distinction between MOF and MOL:

Ex. A bought a golden ring which turned out to be gold plated but the content is
· In MOF, one or both contracting parties, a fact exists when in reality, it does not.
silver. What is the effect? The contract is only voidable. The mistake or error is only
In MOL, one or both contracting parties arrive at an erroneous interpretation of law
the substance of the object of the contract.
or legal effect of an act or transaction.
· In MOF, vitiates consent. In MOL, does not vitiate consent EXCEPT when it
(3) Error over the determining attributes or characteristics of the thing
involves mutual error as to the effect of an agreement when the real purpose is
which are foreign to the matter. In error in substantia, the error is in the thing
frustrated. This is what is referred to in Art. 1334.
itself. While here, it may not be something which is intrinsic but rather extrinsic. Ex.
A bought a painting for $1M which he thought was painted by B whom A idolizes.
Requisites of Art. 1334:
Later on, A found out that the painting was actually painted by C, not B. What is the
effect? The contract is voidable.
The mistake:
(1) It must be a past or present fact.
(4) Error in quantetate is a mistake as to the extension or dimension of the object
and differs from mistakes of account which is simply a mistake in computation or
(2) It must not be imputable to the party mistaken. the mistake must not be
mathematic. Ex. A bought a condominium unit believing that it is 50 square meters,
inadvertent or inexcusable.
only to find out it is 30 square meters. What is the effect? The contract is voidable.
 (3) It must be with respect to the legal effect of an agreement.
(4) It must be mutual.
(5) Parties’ real purpose must have been frustrated.
Note: If all these five requisites are present, the parties may avoid the contract.
Art. 1331 reads: Mistake as to the identity or qualification of one of the parties will vitiate
consent only when such identity or qualifications have been the principal cause of the
contract.
Requisites of Art. 1331:
(1) Mistake is with regard to the identity or qualification
(2) Identity or qualification must have been the principal cause of the contract
Ex. A married C when in fact the latter is actually the identical twin of B, whom A actually fell
in love with.
Ex. A entered into a contract with C whom you thought he was the one being reviewed in a
magazine. It turned out it was actually B.
Roman Catholic Church v. Pante
G.R. No. 174118
Facts
In 1992, the Church contracted with Pante for the sale of the lot on the belief that the latter
was an actual occupant of the lot. In 1994, the Church sold in favor of the Spouses Rubi the lot
previously sold to Pante. The Spouses asserted their ownership by erecting a concrete fence
over the lot sold to Pante, blocking Pante’s access from their home to the road. Pante
instituted an action to annul the sale between the Church and the Spouses Rubi. The Curch
sought the annulment of its contract with Pante, alleging that its consent was obtained by
fraud when Pante, in bad faith, misrepresented that he had been an actual occupant of the lot
sold to him, when in truth, he was merely using the 32 square meter lot as a passageway from
his house to the town proper.
Issue
Whether or not there is a mistake as to the identity of one of the parties.
Ruling
No, there is no misrepresentation existing, vitiating the seller’s consent and invalidating the
contract.
Consent is an essential requisite of contracts as it pertains to the meeting of the offer and the
acceptance upon the thing and the cause which constitute the contract. To create a valid
contract, the meeting of the minds must be free, voluntary, willful and with a reasonable
understanding of the various obligations the parties assumed for themselves. Where consent,
however, is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud, the
contract is deemed voidable. However, not every mistake renders a contract voidable. The
Civil Code clarifies the nature of mistake that vitiates consent:
Under Article 1331, for mistake as to the qualification of one of the parties to vitiate consent,
two requisites must concur:
1) The mistake must be either with regard to the identity or with regard to the
qualification of one of the contracting parties; and
2) the identity or qualification must have been the principal consideration for the
celebration of the contract.
Contrary to the Church’s contention, the actual occupancy or residency of a buyer
over the land does not appear to be a necessary qualification that the Church requires before
it could sell its land. Had this been indeed its policy, then neither Pante nor the spouses Rubi
would qualify as buyers of the 32-square meter lot, as none of them actually occupied or
resided on the lot. We find well-taken Pante’s argument that, given the size of the lot, it could
serve no other purpose than as a mere passageway; it is unthinkable to consider that a 2x16-
meter strip of land could be mistaken as anyone’s residence. In fact, the spouses Rubi were in
possession of the adjacent lot, but they never asserted possession over the 2x16-meter lot
when the 1994 sale was made in their favor; it was only then that they constructed the
concrete fence blocking the passageway.
We find it unlikely that Pante could successfully misrepresent himself as the actual
occupant of the lot; this was a fact that the Church could easily verify had it conducted an
ocular inspection of its own property. The surrounding circumstances actually indicate that
the Church was aware that Pante was using the lot merely as a passageway.
The above facts, in our view, establish that there could not have been a deliberate,
willful, or fraudulent act committed by Pante that misled the Church into giving its consent to
the sale of the subject lot in his favor. That Pante was not an actual occupant of the lot he
purchased was a fact that the Church either ignored or waived as a requirement. In any case,
the Church was by no means led to believe or do so by Pante’s act; there had been no vitiation
of the Church’s consent to the sale of the lot to Pante.
From another perspective, any finding of bad faith, if one is to be made, should be
imputed to the Church. Without securing a court ruling on the validity of its contract with
Pante, the Church sold the subject property to the spouses Rubi. Article 1390 of the Civil Code
declares that voidable contracts are binding, unless annulled by a proper court action. From
the time the sale to Pante was made and up until it sold the subject property to the spouses
Rubi, the Church made no move to reject the contract with Pante; it did not even return the
down payment he paid. The Church’s bad faith in selling the lot to Rubi without annulling its
contract with Pante negates its claim for damages.
In the absence of any vitiation of consent, the contract between the Church and Pante
stands valid and existing. Any delay by Pante in paying the full price could not nullify the
contract, since it was a contract of sale. By its terms, the contract did not provide a stipulation
that the Church retained ownership until full payment of the price. The right to repurchase
given to the Church in case Pante fails to pay within the grace period provided would have
been unnecessary had ownership not already passed to Pante.
Article 1335 reads: “There is violence when in order to wrest consent, serious or irresistible
force is employed.There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a
reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or
property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his
consent. To determine the degree of intimidation, the age, sex and condition of the person
shall be borne in mind. A threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the
claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent.”
Art. 1335(2) does not include intimidation upon the person or property of a brother or
sister.
What is disregarded is free will. Free will is no longer expressed at his own volition.
Note: The similarity between violence or intimidation is that there is duress. But to varying
degrees.
The distinctions between violence or intimidation:
(1) Violence refers to physical force or compulsion. Intimidation refers to a threat to
inflict harm.
(2) Violence is external and prevents the will from acting at all. Intimidation is
internal and does not totally prevent the will from acting but rather, forcibly directs
or guides the will to operate in a particular manner or course or conclusion.
Requisites of Violence:
1) It must be serious or irresistible.
2) It must be the determining cause for the party upon whom it is employed in
entering the contract.
3) It is not justified.
4) It is sufficient.
Requisites of Intimidation:
1) One party is compelled to give his consent by a reasonable or well-grounded fear
of an evil;
2) The evil must imminent and grave;
3) The evil must be upon his person or property, or his spouse, ascendants or
descendants;
4) It is the reason why he enters the contract; and
5) Evil must be unjust.
De Leon v. CA
G.R. No. 80965, June 6, 1990
In order that intimidation may vitiate consent and render the contract invalid, the
following requisites must concur: (1) that the intimidation must be the determining cause of
the contract, or must have caused the consent to be given; (2) that the threatened act be
unjust or unlawful; (3) that the threat be real and serious, there being an evident
disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men can offer, leading to the
choice of the contract as the lesser evil; and (4) that it produces a reasonable and well-
grounded fear from the fact that the person from whom it comes has the necessary means or
ability to inflict the threatened injury.
Applying the foregoing to the present case, the claim of Macaria that Sylvia
threatened her to bring Jose Vicente to court for support, to scandalize their family by
baseless suits and that Sylvia would pardon Jose Vicente for possible crimes of adultery
and/or concubinage subject to the transfer of certain properties to her, is obviously not the
intimidation referred to by law. With respect to mistake as a vice of consent, neither is
Macaria's alleged mistake in having signed the Letter-Agreement because of her belief that
Sylvia will thereby eliminate inheritance rights from her and Jose Vicente, the mistake
referred to in Article 1331 of the Civil Code, supra. It does not appear that the condition that
Sylvia "will eliminate her inheritance rights" principally moved Macaria to enter into the
contract. Rather, such condition was but an incident of the consideration thereof which, as
discussed earlier, is the termination of marital relations.

In the cases of Vales v. Villa, G.R. No. 10028, December 16, 1916, the Supreme Court
distinguished consent reluctantly and against his good sense and judgment from the consent
given it was against his will as he was pressured by violence or intimidation. In the first, it will
not vitiate his consent. In the second, it will vitiate his consent. The Court held:

“There must, then, be a distinction to be made between a case where a person gives
his consent reluctantly and even against his good sense and judgment, and where he,
in reality, gives no consent at all, as where he executes a contract or performs an act
against his will under a pressure which he cannot resist. It is clear that one acts as
voluntarily and independently in the eye of the law when he acts reluctantly and with
hesitation as when he acts spontaneously and joyously. Legally speaking he acts
voluntarily and freely when he acts wholly against his better sense and judgment as
when he acts in conformity with them. Between the two acts there is no difference in
law. But when his sense, judgment, and his will rebel and he refuses absolutely to act
as requested, but is nevertheless overcome by force or intimidation to such an extent
that he becomes a mere automaton and acts mechanically only, a new element
enters, namely, a disappearance of the personality of the actor. He ceases to exist as
an independent entity with faculties and judgment, and in his place is substituted
another — the one exercising the force or making use of intimidation. While his hand
signs, the will which moves it is another's. While a contract is made, it has, in reality
and in law, only one party to it; and, there being only one party, the one using the
force or the intimidation, it is unenforceable for lack of a second party. From these
considerations it is clear that every case of alleged intimidation must be examined to
determine within which class it falls. If it is within the first class it is not duress in
law, if it falls in the second, it is.”