Sps. Angel vs. Aledo
Sps. Angel vs. Aledo
Sps. Angel vs. Aledo
Aledo
Facts:
Spouses Rufino and Emerita Angel engaged the services of Felixberto Modales to construct a 2-storey residential
bulding.
Since Modales was at the time an engineer employed by DPWH, the parties made it appear that the contractor was
Modales’ father-in-law, Simplicio Aledo.
Aledo then filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against the spouses Angel, alleging that despite the
completion of the construction of their building, they failed to pay despite demands.
Spouses Angel claimed that Aledo has no cause of action as he is only a dummy of his son-in-law Modales who was
the actual contractor. Then the spouses Angel filed a 3 rd party complaint against Modales, alleging that he failed to
comply with his obligation under the Construction Agreement as the building had a lot of defects.
Modales alleged that the spouses Angels have no cause of action against him as he had nothing to do with the
contracts.
Held:
NO ONE. The Construction Agreements, which were entered into by the parties with the knowledge that Modales
was prohibited from contracting without the requisite permission from the proper government authorities were
contrary to law and public policy, hence, following Art. 1412 of the Civil Code.
If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the rule is that
when the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the
contract, or demand the performance of the other’s undertaking.
They were in pari delicto, and therefore, they have no action against each other.
Since admittedly it was with Modales that spouses Angel contracted to construct their residential building but that
Aledo, his mere dummy, was named in the Construction Agreements, said agreements were contrary to law and
public policy, hence the parties were in pari delicto.