Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 345 views

    Dumasug Modelo Digest

    Uploaded by

    Karl Estavilla
    Dumasug alleged that Modelo fraudulently persuaded her to sign a document by falsely telling her it documented expenses from a lawsuit, but the document was actually a sale of Dumasug's land and carabao to Modelo. The court found the evidence showed Dumasug's only significant expense was P80-P90 in legal fees, not enough for the property's value. The court ruled Dumasug's consent was invalid due to her mistaken belief about the document's contents, which vitiated the contract. This was an example of mistake of fact invalidating consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dumasug Modelo Digest

    Uploaded by

    Karl Estavilla
    345 views2 pages
    Dumasug alleged that Modelo fraudulently persuaded her to sign a document by falsely telling her it documented expenses from a lawsuit, but the document was actually a sale of Dumasug's land and carabao to Modelo. The court found the evidence showed Dumasug's only significant expense was P80-P90 in legal fees, not enough for the property's value. The court ruled Dumasug's consent was invalid due to her mistaken belief about the document's contents, which vitiated the contract. This was an example of mistake of fact invalidating consent.

    Original Description:

    klsssa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Dumasug alleged that Modelo fraudulently persuaded her to sign a document by falsely telling her it documented expenses from a lawsuit, but the document was actually a sale of Dumasug's land and carabao to Modelo. The court found the evidence showed Dumasug's only significant expense was P80-P90 in legal fees, not enough for the property's value. The court ruled Dumasug's consent was invalid due to her mistaken belief about the document's contents, which vitiated the contract. This was an example of mistake of fact invalidating consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    345 views2 pages

    Dumasug Modelo Digest

    Uploaded by

    Karl Estavilla
    Dumasug alleged that Modelo fraudulently persuaded her to sign a document by falsely telling her it documented expenses from a lawsuit, but the document was actually a sale of Dumasug's land and carabao to Modelo. The court found the evidence showed Dumasug's only significant expense was P80-P90 in legal fees, not enough for the property's value. The court ruled Dumasug's consent was invalid due to her mistaken belief about the document's contents, which vitiated the contract. This was an example of mistake of fact invalidating consent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Dumasug vs.

    Modelo


    
 Facts:


    Dumasug (plaintiff) alleged that Modelo (defendant) persuaded


    her to sign a document by falsely and maliciously making her believe that
    it contained an engagement on Dumasug’s part to pay Modelo a certain
    sum of money as expresses occasioned the latter by reason of a lawsuit in
    which Dumasug was one of the parties and was protected and aided by
    Modelo; that this document, Dumasug, who does not know how to write,
    signed by affixing her mark thereto, believing in good faith that Modelo
    had told her the truth and that said document referred to the expenses
    incurred by Modelo; but that three months after the execution of said
    document, Modelo took possession of a carabao belonging to Dumasug
    and also of two parcels of land, likewise belonging to her and notified
    Dumasug that she had conveyed to him by absolute sale said parcels of
    land and the plow carabao.

    Felix Modelo stated in his sworn testimony that the sale of the
    parcels of land and the carabao was in payment of a debt of P333.49
    which the plaintiff was owing him for money he had advanced her to
    maintain two actions against Albarracin and Saniel. These sums of money
    were used by Dumasug in the payment of attorney's fees, traveling
    expenses for herself and her witnesses and for their expenses while in
    Cebu

    Issue:

    WON the instrument of purchase and sale of two parcels of land


    and carabao is null and void.

    WON the consent is given by mistake.

    Held:

    The evidence discloses that the only great expense which Andrea
    Dumasug could have incurred was the sum that as fees she had to pay
    the attorney Andres Jayme for filing a demurrer in the Court of First
    Instance. Said attorney testified that he received from Andrea Dumasug
    only P80 or P90, the only large sum which the latter had to expend. It is,
    then, perfectly evident that the document, by means of which defendant
    made himself the owner of the properties in question is not the instrument
    of debt which Andrea Dumasug had signed, and if it is the same one its
    contents were not duly and faithfully explained to plaintiff in the act of its
    execution.

    In either case, the consent said to have been given by Andrea


    Dumasug in said document Exhibit 1 is null and void, as it was given by
    mistake (arts. 1265 and 1266, Civil Code). This error invalidates the
    contract, because it goes to the very substance of the thing which was
    the subject matter of said contract, for, had the maker thereof truly
    understood the contents of said document, she would neither have
    accepted nor authenticated it by her mark.

    This is an example of a mistake of fact. In this case, Dumasug


    affixed her thumb mark on the document that presented to her believing
    that it was a deed of mortgage and not a deed of sale therefore her
    consent vitiated the contract.

    You might also like