Unlawful Detainer

Possible Provisions and Jurisprudence to Case # 12
According to article 1338 and 1339 of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
the provisions define fraud as the securement of the consent of a party to enter
into a contract through the use of insidious words and means. Fraud also
constitutes the concealment of a vital information related to the agreement
from a party in a contract.
Without the employment of such fraud, the plaintiff might not have
entered into a contract of sale with the defendant. As the plaintiff was led to
believe that the defendant is the single and only owner of the subject land
being sold to her. If the plaintiff only knew that the land was co-owned by the
defendant and the witness, the plaintiff might not have made a deal with the
defendant.
In the case of Mariño vs Linton, the seller Mariño sold a property
situated in Cavite for the amount of P222,000 to the buyer Linton. The seller
convinced the seller to buy such property due to the vastness of the said
property. The seller misled the buyer by pointing out the boundaries of the said
land; which are not really owned by the seller and which were previously been
sold by the seller to other buyers. So, the court ruled that the contract of sale
entered by the buyer and seller was invalid. Because a consent given by reason
of error, violence, and intimidation, or deceit is invalid. Since the buyer was
misled and deceived by the seller as to the actual boundaries of the land, and,
as to the important fact, that seller could not make a goof title to all of the land
within the boundaries. (Gomez Mariño vs. Linton, 45 Phil. 652)
In the similar case, the plaintiff’s consent was gained through deceit or
fraud. As the plaintiff was led to believe that the defendant has the right over
the entirety of the property located in Salinas, Bambang. And the plaintiff was
led to believe that the defendant has the sole and only right to dispose of the
property through sale. However, not all of the property was of the defendant.
The defendant is only entitled to an aliquot portion. The other portion is co-
owned by the witness. Hence, the contract of sale must be cancelled and
declared invalid through the help of the trial court.
With the help of the trial court the plaintiff asks for rescission and
restitution of the contract of sale which she entered with the defendant with
damages. The plaintiff wants to rescind the contract because of the following
reasons; one, her consent was gained through fraudulent means, and two; the
contract of sale is not valid as the other co-owner’s consent was also lacking in
the contract of sale.
According to article 493 of the civil code of the Philippines, a co-owner is
only entitled to the fruits and benefits of his undivided share. Such person may
alienate, assign, mortgage, and may even sell his share to another person. But
such rights are only limited to his undivided share. Hence, the defendant who
sold the property to the plaintiff cannot sell the entirety of the property situated
in Salinas, Bambang because it is co-owned. Such sale is invalid because the
consent of the co-owner is lacking.
In the case of Spouses Benny and Normita Rol versus Racho, the court
ruled that the extrajudicial settlement with sale or EJSS made was invalid,
because the EJSS was executed without the knowledge and the consent of
Isabel, a co-heir of Fausto, Chita, and Maria, to the estate of their deceased
brother, Loreto. In a catena of cases, the Court had consistently ruled that a
deed of extrajudicial partition executed to the total exclusion of any of the legal
heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to the execution of the same, is
fraudulent, vicious, and invalid. (Spouses Benny vs Racho G.R. No. 246096)
The plaintiff in good faith wanted to return the property and to pray for
restitution. Because the plaintiff respects the rights of the other co-owner and
that she abides by the law. A person who is paid by money, or acquired a
property of another person thru fraudulent means without the latter’s
authority or consent. The persons who may benefit from such payment or
property may repudiate before an illegal act is accomplished or any damage is
caused to a third person. In return, the court may allow the repudiating party
to recover the money or property given to the other contracting party according
to article 1414 of the civil code of the Philippines.
In the case of Valera vs Finnick, the court ordered Finnick (a pawnshop
who unknowingly bought jewels through the fraudulent act of the seller
Nicolasa Pascual) to return what it bought from its rightful owner Josefa
Valera. The court ruled that whoever has been deprived of their property due to
fraudulent acts is entitled to its recovery, even if the property is in the
possession of a third party who acquired it legally. In return, the rightful owner
must reimburse the price paid by the acquirer to recover the property that was
deprived from the former. (Valera vs. Finnick, 009 Phil. 482)
According to article 1170 of the civil code of the Philippines, a person
who caused and are found guilty of breach of the terms and conditions of a
contract, negligence, delay, and fraud must be liable for damages. Through
fraud the defendant misled the plaintiff to enter into a contract of sale with the
defendant. Important information such as the property was co-owned was
concealed from the plaintiff-buyer. If such vital information was disclosed and
was explained fully to the defendant the contract of sale would have been
different. Such information could have affected the plaintiff-buyer’s decision in
buying the property. The plaintiff requests the trial court the defendant must
be held responsible and liable for damages that he caused through fraud.

Unlawful Detainer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unlawful Detainer

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

Unlawful Detainer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Possible Provisions and Jurisprudence to Case # 12

You might also like