1) Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation owned several adjacent parcels of land covered by different titles, and mistakenly constructed a house on the wrong parcel and sold the adjacent vacant parcel to petitioners.
2) When petitioners discovered the mistake years later, private respondent offered to give them two other vacant parcels to remedy the mistake, but petitioners insisted on keeping the parcel with the house instead, which was worth far more.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners could not keep the more valuable parcel, as that was not the subject of sale, and private respondent acted in good faith by trying to remedy the mistake. The annulment of the deed of sale due to the mistake was thus proper
1) Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation owned several adjacent parcels of land covered by different titles, and mistakenly constructed a house on the wrong parcel and sold the adjacent vacant parcel to petitioners.
2) When petitioners discovered the mistake years later, private respondent offered to give them two other vacant parcels to remedy the mistake, but petitioners insisted on keeping the parcel with the house instead, which was worth far more.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners could not keep the more valuable parcel, as that was not the subject of sale, and private respondent acted in good faith by trying to remedy the mistake. The annulment of the deed of sale due to the mistake was thus proper
1) Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation owned several adjacent parcels of land covered by different titles, and mistakenly constructed a house on the wrong parcel and sold the adjacent vacant parcel to petitioners.
2) When petitioners discovered the mistake years later, private respondent offered to give them two other vacant parcels to remedy the mistake, but petitioners insisted on keeping the parcel with the house instead, which was worth far more.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners could not keep the more valuable parcel, as that was not the subject of sale, and private respondent acted in good faith by trying to remedy the mistake. The annulment of the deed of sale due to the mistake was thus proper
1) Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation owned several adjacent parcels of land covered by different titles, and mistakenly constructed a house on the wrong parcel and sold the adjacent vacant parcel to petitioners.
2) When petitioners discovered the mistake years later, private respondent offered to give them two other vacant parcels to remedy the mistake, but petitioners insisted on keeping the parcel with the house instead, which was worth far more.
3) The Supreme Court ruled that petitioners could not keep the more valuable parcel, as that was not the subject of sale, and private respondent acted in good faith by trying to remedy the mistake. The annulment of the deed of sale due to the mistake was thus proper
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
SPOUSES HEINZRICH THEIS AND BETTY THEIS, petitioners, vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HONORABLE ELEUTERIO GUERRERO, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH XVIII, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TAGAYTAY CITY, CALSONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondents. (SPOUSES THEIS VS CA) FACTS Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation owns 3 adjacent parcels. Parcel 1 is covered by TCT No. 15515, Parcel 2 covered by TCT No. 15516, and Parcel No. 3 is covered by TCT No. 15684. Adjacent to parcel no. 3 is a vacant lot denominated as parcel no. 4. In 1985, private respondent constructed a two-storey house on parcel no. 3. The other parcels remained idle. However, in a survey conducted in 1985, parcel no. 3 was erroneously indicated as being covered by TCT No. 15515, while the two idle lands were mistakenly surveyed to be located on parcel no. 4 and covered by TCT No. 11516 and 15684. On October 26 1987, unaware of the mistake, private respondent, through its authorized representative, Atty. Tarcisio Calilung, sold parcel no. 4 to petitioners. Upon execution of Deed of Sale, private respondent delivered TCT No. 15516 and 15684. Petitioners immediately registered the same with the Registry of Deeds in Tagaytay. Petitioners did not immediately occupy the parcels of land since they left for Germany. In 1990, petitioners returned to the Philippines, and when they went to Tagaytay to plan the construction of their house on the parcels of land, they discovered that parcel no. 4 was owned by another person. They also discovered that parcels no. 2 and 3 were the ones sold to them and which the TCTs covered. Petitioners insisted that parcel no. 4 be given to them, and since private respondent could not sell it to them because it did not own the property. Private respondent offered to give parcels no. 1 & 2 instead, but the petitioners rejected the offer and wanted parcel no. 3 insisted, whose value is far beyond the amount paid by the petitioners. ISSUE: I.
Whether or not petitioners can validly take parcel no. 3 to compensate for the mistake.
II.
Whether or not private respondents action for annulment of the deed of sale will prosper?
RULING: I.
PETITIONERS CANNOT TAKE PARCEL NO. 3
The SC held that private respondent obviously committed an honest mistake in selling parcel no. 4. 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. 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. Defendantsappellants cannot now insist on Parcel No. 3 as the same was not the object of the sale between the parties. 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. II.
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ACTION FOR ANNULMENT WILL PROSPER.
Article 1390 of the NCC provides: The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) xxx (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud. In the case at bar, private respondent obviously committed an honest mistake in selling parcel no. 4. Private respondents good faith is evident in the fact that when the mistake was discovered, it immediately offered the other vacant lots or to reimburse the petitioners. 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 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. Moreover, petitioner cannot demand the conveyance of parcel no. 3 since its value is way beyond the amount they paid for parcel no. 4. Granting petitioners request would constitute unjust enrichment. Petition is dismissed.
