Alcasid vs. Court of Appeals https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/v/alcasid-v-court-of-appeals?q...

QR Link

In "Alcasid v. Court of Appeals," the Supreme Court denies the petition of

Isabel Rubio Alcasid seeking the annulment of a contract of sale, ruling that
she did not have a cause of action against Ru�na L. Lim due to lack of evidence
of fraud, mistake, and undue in�uence.

G.R. No. 104751. October 7, 1994.

,
petitioners, ,
respondents.

, J p:

This is a petition under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court to set aside the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 26108 entitled "Ru�na L. Lim v.
Hon. Eustaquio Sto. Domingo, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court, Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 35, Calamba, Laguna, and Isabel Rubio
Alcasid, assisted by her husband Domingo A. Alcasid." LibLex

Petitioner is one of the co-owners of two parcels of land located in Calamba,

Laguna. Private respondent o�ered to purchase from petitioner and her co-
owners the above-mentioned property. Petitioner was willing to sell her share for
P4,500,000.00 and only if all her co-owners would sell their respective shares of
the said land.

Petitioner engaged the services of Atty. Antonio A. Fernandez for the

purpose of negotiating the sale, without knowing that he was also representing
private respondent.

In March 1990, petitioner signed a Deed of Sale drafted by Atty. Fernandez.

Subsequently, petitioner learned that the other co-owners did not agree to sell
their shares over the subject property.

1 of 4 22/03/2024, 10:05 AM
Alcasid vs. Court of Appeals https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/v/alcasid-v-court-of-appeals?q...

On March 4, 1990, petitioner signed a Deed of Sale drafted by Atty.

Fernandez. Subsequently, petitioner learned that the other co-owners did not
agree to sell their shares over the subject property.

On November 4, 1990, petitioner �led a complaint in the Regional Trial

Court, Branch 34, Calamba, Laguna, for annulment of the contract of sale and
damages with a prayer for temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary
injunction against private respondent.

Private respondent �led a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the

complaint stated no cause of action. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.

On August 20, 1991, a motion to declare private respondent in default was

�led by petitioner. This was granted by the trial court.

Private respondent appealed the said orders of the trial court to the Court of
Appeals, which reversed the decision of the trial court and held that the complaint
stated no cause of action.

Hence, this petition.

II

Petitioner alleges that her complaint for annulment of contract is based

upon fraud, mistake and undue in�uence which vitiated her consent. According
to her, were it not for the misrepresentation of private respondent and Atty.
Fernandez that her co-owners had agreed to sell their share to private
respondent, petitioner would not have agreed to sell her share. LLpr

Private respondent, on the other hand, claims the complaint is in the nature
of a malpractice suit against Atty. Fernandez and not against her.

III

Petitioner contends that she was not aware that Atty. Fernandez was also
representing private respondent, but a letter dated March 4, 1990 sent by Atty.
Fernandez to the petitioner belied her allegation.

The letter is reproduced in full, as follows:

"March 4, 1990

TO: Mrs. Isabel R. Alcasid &

Mrs. Mila A. Marcos (daughter)

For and in behalf of my client, Miss Ru�na L. Lim of Bucal, Calamba,

Laguna, I, Atty. Antonio A. Fernandez hereby con�rm that the selling price of One
Million One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos (P1,0001,750.00) is NET
Purchase price and full payment of Lot Nos. 44-10-A-4 & 199-New-A-4.

My client, Miss Ru�na Lim, the vendee, hereby assumes the full payment of
BIR capital gains tax and transfer fee. Likewise, my said clients shall shoulder
Register of Deed's registration and transfer fees, including all the documentary &
science stamps. Attorney's fees and back taxes and other related fees shall be
exclusively paid by the vendee, Miss Lim.

2 of 4 22/03/2024, 10:05 AM
Alcasid vs. Court of Appeals https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/v/alcasid-v-court-of-appeals?q...

In payment for the said purchase price, the full amount is represented by
PNB DEMAND DRAFT NO. ______ issued on March ______, 1990.

This arrangement is also true to other vendors, namely Ignacio Rubio, Felix Rubio,
Heirs of Eufrosina Laygo, Heirs of Luz Rubio & Heirs of Amador Rubio.

ANTONIO A. FERNANDEZ
Counsel for Miss Ru�na Lim"

(Rollo, p. 7; Emphasis supplied)

On the matter of fraud, Article 1338 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
provides:

"There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of

the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which,
without them, he would not have agreed to" (Art. 1338, Civil Code). prcd

In order that fraud may vitiate consent and be a cause for annulment of
contract, the following must concur:

1.) It must have been employed by one contracting party upon the other
(Art. 1342 and 134);

2.) It must have induced the other party to enter into the contract (Art. 1338);

3.) It must have been serious (Art. 1344);

4.) It must have resulted in damage and injury to the party seeking
annulment (Tolentino, IV Commentaries on the Civil Code of the Philippines, 507
1991 ed).

As to the alleged mistake, Article 1331 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
provides:

"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."

To invalidate consent, the error must be real and not one that could have
been avoided by the party alleging it. The error must arise from facts unknown to
him. He cannot allege an error which refers to a fact known to him or which he
should have known by ordinary diligent examination of the facts. An error so
patent and obvious that nobody could have made it, or one which could have been
avoided by ordinary prudence, cannot be invoked by the one who made it in order
to annul his contract (Tolentino, supra at pp. 486-487).

Petitioner could have avoided the alleged mistake had she exerted e�orts to
verify from her co-owners if they really consented to sell their respective shares.

As to undue in�uence, Article 1337 of the Civil Code of the Philippines

provides:

"There is undue in�uence when a person takes improper advantage of his

power over the will of another, depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of
choice. The following circumstances shall be considered: the con�dential, family,

3 of 4 22/03/2024, 10:05 AM
Alcasid vs. Court of Appeals https://jurisprudence.ph/jurisprudence/v/alcasid-v-court-of-appeals?q...

spiritual and other relations between the parties, or the fact that the person
alleged to have been unduly in�uenced was su�ering from mental weakness, or
was ignorant or in �nancial distress."

Undue in�uence, therefore, is any means employed upon a party which,

under the circumstances, he could not well resist and which controlled his
volition and induced him to give his consent to the contract, which otherwise he
would not have entered into. It must in some measure destroy the free agency of a
party and interfere with the exercise of that independent discretion which is
necessary for determining the advantages or disadvantages of a proposed
contract (Tolentino, supra at p. 501). If a competent person has once assented to a
contract freely and fairly, he is bound thereby.

The �nding of the Court of Appeals that petitioner executed the contract of
her own free will and choice and not from duress is fully supported by the
evidence. Such �nding should not be disturbed (Martinez v. Hongkong &
Shanghai Bank, 15 Phil. 252 1910). LLjur

Private respondent did not commit any wrongful act or omission which
violated the primary right of petitioner. Hence, petitioner did not have a cause of
action (State Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 348 1992).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals

appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Chairman, Davide, Jr., Bellosillo and Kapunan, JJ., concur.

4 of 4 22/03/2024, 10:05 AM