G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. - February 1997 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

5/18/22, 3:31 PM G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
ET AL. : February 1997 - Philipppine …
Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
February 1997 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 >

February 1997 Decisions >
G.R. No. 126013 February 12,
1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.:

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 126013. February 12, 1997.]
SPOUSES HEINZRICH THEIS AND BETTY THEIS,
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1997februarydecisions.php?id=120 1/32
5/18/22, 3:31 PM G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : February 1997 - Philipppine …
Petitioners, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,

HONORABLE ELEUTERIO GUERRERO, ACTING
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH XVIII, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, TAGAYTAY CITY, CALSONS DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.
Rosales Law office for Petitioner.
Dominador B. Lao for Private Respondent.

SYLLABUS

CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; VOIDABLE

CONTRACTS; CONSENT VITIATED BY MISTAKE; CASE AT BAR.
— Private respondent committed an honest mistake in selling
parcel no. 4. As correctly noted by the Court of Appeals, it is
quite impossible for private respondent to sell the lot in
question as the same is not owned by it. 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. Art. 1331 of the New Civil Code provides for the
situations whereby mistake may invalidate consent. 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. The petitioners
cannot be justified in their insistence that parcel no. 3, upon
which private respondent constructed a two-storey house, be
given to them in lieu of parcel no. 4. The cost of construction
for the said house far exceeds the amount paid by the
petitioners to the private Respondent. Moreover, parcel no. 4,

the lot mistakenly sold, was a vacant lot. Thus, to allow the
petitioners to take parcel no. 3 would be to countenance
unjust enrichment. Considering that petitioners intended at
the outset to purchase a vacant lot, their refusal to accept the
offer of the private respondent to give them two (2) other
vacant lots in exchange, as well as their insistence on parcel
no. 3, which is a house and lot, is manifestly unreasonable. chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law
library
DECISION

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

In the instant petition, we shall have the occasion to apply the

concept of mistake in the annulment of contracts.
Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation is the owner

of three (3) adjacent parcels of land covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 15515 (parcel no. 1 in the location
map), 15516 (parcel no. 2) and 15684 (parcel no. 3), with the
area of 1,000 square meters, 226 square meters and 1,000
square meters, respectively. All three parcels of land are situated
along Ligaya Drive, Barangay Francisco, Tagaytay City. Adjacent
to parcel no. 3, which is the lot covered by TCT No. 15684 is a
vacant lot denominated as parcel no. 4.
In 1985, private respondent constructed a two-storey house on

parcel no. 3. The lots covered by TCT No. 15515 and TCT No.
15516, which are parcel no. 1 and parcel no. 2, respectively,
remained idle.
However, in a survey conducted in 1985, parcel no. 3, where the

two-storey house stands, was erroneously indicated to be covered
not by TCT No. 15684 but by TCT No. 15515, while the two idle
lands (parcel nos. 1 and 2) were mistakenly surveyed to be
located on parcel no. 4 instead (which was not owned by private
respondent) and covered by TCT Nos. 15516 and 15684.
On October 26, 1987, unaware of the mistake by which private

respondent appeared to be the owner of parcel no. 4 as indicated
in the erroneous survey, and based on the erroneous information
given by the surveyor that parcel no. 4 is covered by TCT No.
15516 and 15684, private respondent, through its authorized
representative, one Atty. Tarcisio S. Calilung, sold said parcel no.
4 to petitioners.
Upon execution of the Deed of Sale, private respondent delivered

TCT Nos. 15516 and 15684 to petitioners who, on October 28,
1987, immediately registered the same with the Registry of
Deeds of Tagaytay City. Thus, TCT Nos. 17041 and 17042 in the
names of the petitioners were issued.
Indicated on the Deed of Sale as purchase price was the amount

of P130,000.00. The actual price agreed upon and paid, however,
was P486,000.00. This amount was not immediately paid to
private respondent, rather, it was deposited in escrow in an
interest-bearing account in its favor with the United Coconut
Planters Bank in Makati City. The P486,000.00 in escrow was
released to, and received by, private respondent on December 4,
1987.
Thereafter, petitioners did not immediately occupy and take

possession of the two (2) idle parcels of land purchased from
private Respondent. Instead, petitioners went to Germany.
In the early part of 1990, petitioners returned to the Philippines.

When 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.
Petitioners insisted that they wanted parcel no. 4, which is the
idle lot adjacent to parcel no. 3, and persisted in claiming that it

was parcel no. 4 that private respondent sold to them. However,
private respondent could not have possibly sold the same to them
for it did not own parcel no. 4 in the first place.
The mistake in the identity of the lots is traceable to the

erroneous survey conducted in 1985.
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. They refused to yield to reason and insisted on
taking parcel no. 3, covered by TCT No. 155864 and upon which a
two-storey house stands, in addition to parcel no. 2, covered by
TCT No. 15516, on the ground that these TCTs have already been
cancelled and new ones issued in their name.
chanrobles.com : virtual law library
Such refusal of petitioners prompted private respondent to make

another offer, this time, the return of an amount double the price
paid by petitioners. Petitioners still refused and stubbornly
insisted in their stand.
Private respondent was then compelled to file an action for

annulment of deed of sale and reconveyance of the properties
subject thereof 1 in the Regional Trial Court. 2
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private Respondent.

Identifying the core issue in the instant controversy to be the
voidability of the contract of sale between petitioners and private
respondent on the ground of mistake, the trial court annulled said
contract of sale after finding that there was indeed a mistake in
the identification of the parcels of land intended to be the subject
matter of said sale. The trial court ratiocinated:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Meeting head-on the issue of alleged mistake in the object of the

same, defendants in their answer averred that they relied on the
technical descriptions of TCT Nos. 15516 and 15684 appearing in
the deed of sale. . .
A resolution of the conflicting claims of the parties to the instant
controversy calls for an inquiry on their real intent relative to the

identity of the parcels which plaintiff intended to sell to
defendants and which the latter in turn, intended to buy from the
former. For, the Court cannot ignore the dictates of logic and
common sense which, ordinarily, could not push a person to sell
to another, a property which the former does not own in the first
place, for fear of adverse consequences. The vendee, following
the same reasoning, would not buy a thing unless he is totally
certain that the seller is the real owner of the thing offered for
sale. It is equally true that when one sells or buys a real property,
he either sells or buys the property as he sees it, in its actual
setting and by its physical metes and bounds, and not be the
mere lot number assigned to the same property in the certificate
of title or in any document. And, when a buyer of real property
decides to purchase from his seller, he is ordinarily bound by
prudence to ascertain the true nature, identity or character of the
property that he intends to buy and ascertain the title of his
vendor before he parts with his money. It is quite obvious that
the foregoing precepts and precautions were observed by the
parties in the case at bar as there is no question at all that the
sale in question was consummated through the initiative of Mrs.
Gloria Contreras and then Vice-Mayor Benjamin Erni. . . both
brokers of the sale who, after a chance meeting with defendants
at the Taal Vista Lodge Hotel prior to the sale of plaintiff’s parcels,
brought defendants to the vicinity where plaintiff’s three (3)
adjacent parcels of land are located and pointed to defendants
the two (2) vacant parcels right beside plaintiff’s house. It is also
undisputed that when defendants intimated to the brokers their
desire to buy the vacant lots pointed to them when they visited
the same place, they were brought to plaintiff’s representative,
Tarcisio S. Calilung, at the latter’s office in Makati where the
parties discussed the terms of the sale.
The Court notes further from the records that defendants’ desire
to buy vacant lots from plaintiff is not only confirmed by the
testimony of Gloria Contreras and the ocular inspection conducted
by the court but by defendant Betty Theis herself when the latter
testified as follows:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘COURT:
Q. Why, what was the lot that you intended to buy?
A. The right side of the house, Your Honor.’ (TSN of November

8.1991, page 19)
Similarly, in answer to a question propounded to the same

defendant by their counsel, she stated that —
‘ATTY. ROSALES:
Q. In other words, the titles delivered to you were not the titles
covering the right side of the house?
A. No, sir.’ (Ibid., page 20)
It is relevant to mention that when the defendants attempted to

take possession of the parcels of land they bought from the
plaintiff on which they intended to construct their house after
their return from a foreign sojourn, they admittedly wanted to
take that vacant area, which as herein shown, turns out to be a
property not owned by plaintiff. From this act of the defendants, a
clear meaning is shown. Defendants themselves, knew right from
the beginning that what they intended to buy was that vacant lot,
not the lot where plaintiff’s house stands, covered by TCT No.
15684 which was wrongly mentioned as one of the objects of the
sale. . . .
The fact that the Deed of Sale subsequently executed by plaintiff

and the defendants on October 27, 1987 covers the parcel of land
where plaintiff’s two-storey house was constructed will clearly
reflect a situation that is totally different from what defendants
had intended to buy from the plaintiff viz-a-viz [sic] the latter’s
intention to sell its two (2) vacant lots to defendants.
Notwithstanding defendants’ claim that it was not possible for
plaintiff’s representative not to be familiar with its properties, the
acts and circumstances established in this case would clearly
show, and this Court is convinced, that the inclusion of the parcel
where plaintiff’s house is constructed is solely attributable to a
mistake in the object of the sale between the parties. This
mistake, obviously, was made, on the part of plaintiff’s
representative when the latter mistook the vacant lot situated on
the right side of plaintiff’s house as its vacant parcels of land
when its vacant lots are actually situated on the left side of the
same house. Indeed, such mistake on plaintiff’s part appears to

be tragic as it turned out later that the vacant lot on the right side
of plaintiff’s house did not belong to plaintiff. Worse, is the fact
that what was conveyed to defendants under the deed of sale was
the parcel where plaintiff’s house already stood at the time of the
sale. This, definitely, is not what the parties intended.
. . . Going by the facts established by defendants’ evidence, it is

clear that defendants did not intend to buy the parcel of land
where plaintiff’s house stood as defendant Betty Theis declared in
her testimony that they wanted to buy the parcel at the right side
of plaintiff’s house where she and her husband would construct
their house (TSN of June 4, 1991, p. 56). Neither can this Court
accept the hypothesis that plaintiff intended to sell that parcel
where its house was already constructed for if this was its true
intention, it would not sell its two (2) lots at the price of
P486,000.00 which is way below the costs of its construction of
P1,500,000,00.
The law itself explicitly recognizes that consent of the parties is

one of the essential elements to the validity of the contract and
where consent is given through mistake, the validity of the
contractual relations between the parties is legally impaired.
As earlier stated, the facts obtaining in the case at bar

undoubtedly show that when defendants bought the properties of
plaintiff, they intended to buy the vacant lots owned by the latter.
As the sale that was finally consummated by the parties had
covered the parcel where plaintiff’s house was constructed even
before the sale took place, this Court can safely assume that the
deed of sale executed by the parties did not truly express their
true intention. In other words, the mistake or error on the subject
of the sale in question appears to be substantial as the object of
the same transaction is different from that intended by the
parties. This fiasco could have been cured and the pain and
travails of this litigation avoided, had parties agreed to
reformation of the deed of sale. But, as shown by the sequence of
events occurring after the sale was consummated, and the
mistake was discovered, the defendants refused, insisting that
they wanted the vacant lots on the right side of plaintiff’s house,
which was impossible for plaintiff to do, as said vacant lots were
not of its own dominion." 3 [Emphasis supplied]
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, petitioners sought its

reversal 4 from respondent Court of Appeals. 5 Respondent court,
however, did not find the appeal meritorious and accordingly
affirmed 6 the trial court decision. Ruled the respondent appellate
court:
"There is no doubt that when defendants-appellants attempted to

take physical possession of Parcel No. 4 in May, 1990, they were
prevented by the true owner thereof from taking possession of
said land. To clear the matter, plaintiff-appellee hired a new
surveyor who revealed in his survey that Parcel No. 4 is not
included in plaintiff-appellee’s Transfer Certificates of Title from
which said plaintiff-appellee mistakenly offered defendants-
appellants said Parcel No. 4. Realizing its mistake, plaintiff-
appellee offered defendants-appellants Parcels Nos. 1 and 2 under
the same Transfer Certificates of Title or the reimbursement of
the purchase price in double amount. But defendants-appellants
insisted this time to acquire Parcel No. 3 wherein plaintiff-appellee
had already a house, and was not the object of the sale.
Said Parcel No. 3 cannot be the object of the sale between the
parties as plaintiff-appellee’s house already stands in the said
area even before defendants-appellants had chosen Parcel No. 4
which was described to be on the right side of said plaintiff-
appellee’s house in Parcel No. 3. There is no dispute that
defendants-appellants wanted to buy Parcel No. 4 as testified to
by defendant-appellant Betty Theis, herself (p. 19, tsn, Nov. 8,
1991), which lot turned out to be outside of the Transfer
Certificates of Title of plaintiff-appellee. Defendants-appellants
cannot now insist on Parcel No. 3 as the same was not the object
of the sale between the parties.
Clearly, therefore, there was honest mistake on the part of

plaintiff-appellee in the sale of Parcel No. 4 to defendants-
appellants which plaintiff-appellee tried to remedy by offering
defendants-appellants instead his Parcels Nos. 1 or 2, or
reimbursement of the purchase price in double amount." 7
[Emphasis ours]
We find that respondent court correctly affirmed the findings and

conclusions of the trial court in annulling the deed of sale as the
former are supported by evidence and the latter are in

accordance with existing law and jurisprudence.
Art. 1390 of the New Civil Code provides:
"Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable,

even though there may have been no damage to the contracting
parties:
(1) . . . (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake,

violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud.

x x x"
In the case at bar, the private respondent obviously committed an

honest mistake in selling parcel no. 4. As correctly noted by the
Court of Appeals, it is quite impossible for said private respondent
to sell the lot in question as the same is not owned by it. 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.
As enunciated in the case of Mariano v. Court of Appeals: 8
"A contract may be annulled where the consent of one of the

contracting parties was procured by mistake, fraud, intimidation,
violence, or undue influence."
cralaw virtua1aw library
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."
Tolentino 9 explains that 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.
The petitioners cannot be justified in their insistence that parcel

no. 3, upon which private respondent constructed a two-storey
house, be given to them in lieu of parcel no. 4. The cost of
construction in 1985 for the said house (P1,500,000.00) far
exceeds the amount paid by the petitioners to the private
respondent (P486,000.00). Moreover, the trial court, in
questioning private respondent’s witness, Atty. Tarciso Calilung
(who is also its authorized representative) clarified that parcel no.
4, the lot mistakenly sold, was a vacant lot: 10
"COURT: What property did you point to them?
A. I pointed to parcel No. 4, as appearing in the sketch.
COURT: Parcel No. 4 is a vacant lot?
A. Yes, your Honor.
COURT: So, there was no house on that lot?
A. There was no house. There were pineapple crops existing on

the property.
COURT: So, you are telling the Court that the intended lot is
vacant lot or Parcel 4?
A. Yes, your Honor.
Thus, to allow the petitioners to take parcel no. 3 would be to

countenance unjust enrichment. Considering that petitioners
intended at the outset to purchase a vacant lot, their refusal to
accept the offer of the private respondent to give them two (2)
other vacant lots in exchange, as well as their insistence on parcel
no. 3, which is a house and lot, is manifestly unreasonable. As
held by this Court in the case of Security Bank and Trust

Company v. Court of Appeals: 11
"Hence, to allow petitioner bank to acquire the constructed

building at a price far below its actual construction cost would
undoubtedly constitute unjust enrichment for the bank to the
prejudice of the private Respondent. Such unjust enrichment, as
previously discussed, is not allowed by law."
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision

of the Court Appeals in CA-G.R. 47000 dated May 31, 1996
AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED
Padilla, Bellosillo, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Civil Case No. TG-1167.
2. Branch 18, Tagaytay City, Cavite.
3. Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. TG-1167

penned by Judge Julieto P. Tabiolo and dated
December 15, 1993, pp. 3-6, Rollo, pp. 87-90.
4. Petitioners’ appeal was docketed as CA-G.R CV No.

47000.
5. Eighth Division.
6. Decision promulgated on May 31, 1996 and penned

by Associate Justice Lourdes K. Tayao-Jaguros, with
Associate Justices Jaime M. Lantin and B.A. Adefuin-de
la Cruz concurring, Rollo, pp. 28-34.
7. Id., pp. 6-7, Rollo, pp. 31-32.
8. 220 SCRA 716 (1993).
9. TOLENTINO, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES p.

476, Vol. 4 (1991 ed.)
10. Rollo, pp. 109-110.
11. 249 SCRA 206 (1995).
Back to Home | Back to Main
Search

ChanRobles
Professional Review,
Inc.
ChanRobles On-Line
Bar Review
ChanRobles CPA
Review Online
ChanRobles Special
Lecture Series
February-1997
Jurisprudence

G.R. No. 99039

February 3, 1997 -
FORD PHIL., ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 100748

February 3, 1997 - JOSE
BARITUA v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 108547

February 3, 1997 -
FELICIDAD VDA. DE
CABRERA, ET AL. v.
AL.
G.R. Nos. 112761-65

February 3, 1997 -
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
PORFERIO M. PEPITO

G.R. No. 114183

February 3, 1997 -
JESUS BORJA

G.R. No. 119310

February 3, 1997 -
JULIETA V. ESGUERRA v.
AL.

G.R. No. 119935

February 3, 1997 -
UNITED SOUTH
DOCKHANDLERS, INC.
v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 122156

February 3, 1997 -
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL
v. GSIS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 123332

February 3, 1997 -
AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN
v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

G.R. No. 118915

February 4, 1997 -
CAPITOL MEDICAL
CENTER-ACE-UFSW v.
BIENVENIDO
LAGUESMA, ET AL.

Adm. Matter No. P-

94-1110 February 6,
1997 - MELENCIO S. SY
v. CARMELITA S.
MONGCUPA

Adm. Matter No. P-

96-1203 February 6,
1997 - ERNESTO A.
REYES v. NORBERTO R.
ANOSA

G.R. No. 110668

February 6, 1997 ccc zz
SMITH, BELL & CO.,

INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 111682

February 6, 1997 -
ZENAIDA REYES v.
AL.

G.R. No. 117982

February 6, 1997 -
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE v.
AL.

G.R. No. 118843

February 6, 1997 -
ERIKS PTE. LTD. v.
AL.

G.R. Nos. 118950-54

February 6, 1997 -
LUCRECIA GABRES

G.R. No. 119322

February 6, 1997 -
COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 98252

February 7, 1997 -
RENE JANUARIO, ET AL.

G.R. No. 110391

February 7, 1997 -
DOLORES DE LEON

G.R. No. 112191

February 7, 1997 -
FORTUNE MOTORS
(PHILS.) CORP., ET AL.
ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 112714-15

February 7, 1997 -
ANTONIO SAGARAL

G.R. No. 117472

February 7, 1997 -
LEO ECHEGARAY

G.R. No. 119657

February 7, 1997 -
UNIMASTERS
CONGLOMERATION,
INC. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 119772-73

February 7, 1997 -
NIGEL RICHARD
GATWARD

G.R. No. 125249

February 7, 1997 -
JIMMY S. DE CASTRO v.
COMELEC, ET AL.

Adm. Matter No. P-

95-1161 February 10,
1997 - JESUS N.
BANDONG v. BELLA R.
CHING

G.R. No. 108894

February 10, 1997 -
TECNOGAS PHIL. MFG.
CORP. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 109887

February 10, 1997 -
CECILIA CARLOS v.
AL.

G.R. No. 117702

February 10, 1997 -
CRISPIN
YPARRAGUIRRE

G.R. No. 124553

February 10, 1997 -
ROSARIO R. TUASON v.
AL.

Adm. Matter No.

MTJ-95-1070 February
12, 1997 - MARIA
APIAG, ET AL. v.
ESMERALDO G.
CANTERO

Adm. Matter No. P-

87-100 February 12,
1997 - FELISA ELIC
VDA. DE ABELLERA v.
NEMESIO N. DALISAY

Adm. Matter No. P-

1997 - ISAIAS P.
DICDICAN v. RUSSO
FERNAN, JR., ET AL.

G.R. No. 68166

February 12, 1997 -
HEIRS OF EMILIANO
NAVARRO v.
INTERMEDIATE
APPELLATE COURT, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 104666

February 12, 1997 -
BIENVENIDO OMBROG

G.R. No. 115129

February 12, 1997 -
IGNACIO BARZAGA v.
AL.

G.R. No. 116511

February 12, 1997 -
COLOMA TABAG, ET AL.

G.R. No. 118025

February 12, 1997 -
REBECCO SATOR

G.R. No. 120769

February 12, 1997 -
STANLEY J. FORTICH v.
AL.

G.R. No. 125531

February 12, 1997 -
JOVAN LAND v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 126013

February 12, 1997 -
HEINZRICH THEIS, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 107554

February 13, 1997 -
CEBU INT’L. FINANCE
CORP. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 108763

February 13, 1997 -
REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
ET AL.

G.R. No. 112968

February 13, 1997 -
ARSENIO LETIGIO

G.R. No. 114144

February 13, 1997 -
FLORENTINO ABAD

G.R. Nos. 114711 &

115889 February 13,
1997 - GARMENTS and
TEXTILE EXPORT BOARD
ET AL.

G.R. No. 122728

February 13, 1997 -
CASIANO A.
ANGCHANGCO v.
OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

Adm. Matter No. RTJ-

96-217 February 17,
1997 - MANUEL F.
CONCEPCION v. JESUS
V. AGANA, ET AL.

Adm. Matter No. RTJ

1997 - OCTAVIO DEL
CALLAR v. IGNACIO L.
SALVADOR, ET AL.

G.R. Nos. 103501-03

& 103507 February 17,
1997 - LUIS A.
TABUENA v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 119247

February 17, 1997 -
CESAR SULIT v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 119536

February 17, 1997 -
GLORIA S. DELA CRUZ
v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 121017

February 17, 1997 -
OLIVIA B. CAMANAG v.
JESUS F. GUERRERO, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 122165

February 17, 1997 - ALA
MODE GARMENTS, INC.
v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 123823

February 17, 1997 -
MODESTO G. ESPAÑO v.
AL.

G.R. No. 96249

February 19, 1997 -
ALIPIO QUIAMCO, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 114396

February 19, 1997 -
WILLIAM ROBERT
BURTON

G.R. No. 118140

February 19, 1997 -
DANTE PIANDIONG, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 121084

February 19, 1997 -
TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS.
CORP. v. TOYOTA
MOTOR PHILS. CORP.
LABOR UNION, ET AL.

G.R. No. 107916

February 20, 1997 -
PERCIVAL MODAY, ET
AL. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 112288

February 20, 1997 -
DELSAN TRANSPORT
LINES, INC. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

Adm. Matter No. P-

1997 - LEWELYN S.
ESTRELLER v.
SOFRONIO MANATAD,
JR.

G.R. No. 73399

February 21, 1997 -
RAMON ABEDES

G.R. No. 117394

February 21, 1997 -
HINATUAN MINING
CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P

February 24, 1997 -
SOPHIA ALAWI v.
ASHARY M. ALAUYA

G.R. No. 110427

February 24, 1997 -
CARMEN CAÑIZA v.
AL.


1997 - ROMEO
NAZARENO, ET AL. v.
ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO

G.R. No. 94237

February 26, 1997 -
BUILDING CARE CORP.
v. NLRC, ET AL.

G.R. No. 105294

February 26, 1997 -
PACITA DAVID-CHAN v.
AL.

G.R. No. 107671

February 26, 1997 -
REMMAN ENTERPRISES
ET AL.

G.R. No. 109849

February 26, 1997 -
MAXIMINO FUENTES v.
AL.

G.R. No. 110098

February 26, 1997 -
BUENAFE AZUGUE

G.R. No. 111538

February 26, 1997 -
PARAÑAQUE KINGS
ENTERPRISES, INC. v.
AL.

G.R. No. 116033

February 26, 1997 -
ALFREDO L. AZARCON
v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET
AL.

G.R. No. 123404

February 26, 1997 -
AURELIO SUMALPONG v.
AL.


1997 - ERNESTO RIEGO,
ET AL. v. EMILIO
LEACHON, JR.

Copyright © 1995 - 2022 REDiaz

G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. - February 1997 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. - February 1997 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/18/22, 3:31 PM G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

ET AL. : February 1997 - Philipppine …

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

February 1997 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1997 >

[G.R. No. 126013. February 12, 1997.]

SPOUSES HEINZRICH THEIS AND BETTY THEIS,

Petitioners, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS,

Rosales Law office for Petitioner.

Dominador B. Lao for Private Respondent.

CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS; VOIDABLE

petitioners to the private Respondent. Moreover, parcel no. 4,

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

In the instant petition, we shall have the occasion to apply the

Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation is the owner

In 1985, private respondent constructed a two-storey house on

However, in a survey conducted in 1985, parcel no. 3, where the

respondent) and covered by TCT Nos. 15516 and 15684.

On October 26, 1987, unaware of the mistake by which private

Upon execution of the Deed of Sale, private respondent delivered

Indicated on the Deed of Sale as purchase price was the amount

Thereafter, petitioners did not immediately occupy and take

In the early part of 1990, petitioners returned to the Philippines.

Petitioners insisted that they wanted parcel no. 4, which is the

idle lot adjacent to parcel no. 3, and persisted in claiming that it

The mistake in the identity of the lots is traceable to the

To remedy the mistake, private respondent offered parcel nos. 1

chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Such refusal of petitioners prompted private respondent to make

Private respondent was then compelled to file an action for

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private Respondent.

"Meeting head-on the issue of alleged mistake in the object of the

A resolution of the conflicting claims of the parties to the instant

controversy calls for an inquiry on their real intent relative to the

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Q. Why, what was the lot that you intended to buy?

A. The right side of the house, Your Honor.’ (TSN of November

Similarly, in answer to a question propounded to the same

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

A. No, sir.’ (Ibid., page 20)

It is relevant to mention that when the defendants attempted to

The fact that the Deed of Sale subsequently executed by plaintiff

same house. Indeed, such mistake on plaintiff’s part appears to

. . . Going by the facts established by defendants’ evidence, it is

The law itself explicitly recognizes that consent of the parties is

As earlier stated, the facts obtaining in the case at bar

Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, petitioners sought its

"There is no doubt that when defendants-appellants attempted to

Clearly, therefore, there was honest mistake on the part of

We find that respondent court correctly affirmed the findings and

former are supported by evidence and the latter are in

Art. 1390 of the New Civil Code provides:

"Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable,

chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) . . . (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake,

In the case at bar, the private respondent obviously committed an

"A contract may be annulled where the consent of one of the

cralaw virtua1aw library

"Art. 1331. In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it

cralaw virtua1aw library

Tolentino 9 explains that the concept of error in this article must