Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    Cade Digest Contracts

    Uploaded by

    Rowami Azalan
    1) The petitioner sued to annul a contract to sell her share of land, claiming fraud and undue influence as her co-owners did not agree to sell. 2) The trial court initially denied the petition but later reversed upon appeal, finding no cause of action against the private respondent. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the elements of fraud were not met and there was no undue influence over petitioner.

    Copyright:

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

    Cade Digest Contracts

    Uploaded by

    Rowami Azalan
    97 views2 pages
    1) The petitioner sued to annul a contract to sell her share of land, claiming fraud and undue influence as her co-owners did not agree to sell. 2) The trial court initially denied the petition but later reversed upon appeal, finding no cause of action against the private respondent. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the elements of fraud were not met and there was no undue influence over petitioner.

    Original Description:

    As

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner sued to annul a contract to sell her share of land, claiming fraud and undue influence as her co-owners did not agree to sell. 2) The trial court initially denied the petition but later reversed upon appeal, finding no cause of action against the private respondent. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the elements of fraud were not met and there was no undue influence over petitioner.

    Copyright:

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

    Cade Digest Contracts

    Uploaded by

    Rowami Azalan
    1) The petitioner sued to annul a contract to sell her share of land, claiming fraud and undue influence as her co-owners did not agree to sell. 2) The trial court initially denied the petition but later reversed upon appeal, finding no cause of action against the private respondent. 3) The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the elements of fraud were not met and there was no undue influence over petitioner.

    Copyright:

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

    Isabel Rubio Alcasid, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.

    G. R. No. 104751, August 30, 1950


    QUIASON, J.:

    FACTS:
    The petitioner, Isabel Rubio Alcasid, is one of the co-owners of two parcels of land, she was willing
    to sell her share and only if all her co-owners would sell their respective shares. Petitioner then
    engaged the services of Atty. Antonio A. Fernandez, without knowing that he was also representing
    private respondent. Private respondent, Rufina L. Lim, offered to purchase from petitioner and her co-
    owners the abovementioned land. On March 4, 1990, petitioner signed a Deed of Sale drafted by Atty.
    Fernandez, believing that her co-owners were already amendable to sell their shares. Subsequently,
    the petitioner learned that the co-owners did not agree to sell their shares over the subject property.

    Regional Trial Court (Branch 34, Calamba, Laguna)


    ISSUE/S:
    (1) Whether or not to accept the petition for annulment of contract of sale and writ of preliminary
    injunction against private respondent.
    (2) Whether or not to accept the motion to dismiss by private respondent on the grounds that the
    complaint stated no cause of action.
    (3) Whether or not to accept the motion to declare private respondent in default filed by petitioner.
    DECISCION/S:
    (1) Denied. The trial court found that the complaint filed by petitioner was necessary as they
    accepted it in 1990, but the trial court reversed its decision on 1991 when private respondent
    appealed the said order of the trial court to the Court of Appeals. No cause of action was found
    against private respondent, thus, the petition filed against her should be denied.
    (2) Accepted. Private respondent filed a motion to dismiss, the trial court denied the motion to
    dismiss. Subsequently, when private respondent appealed the said order of the trial court to the
    Court of appeals, the trial court reversed its decision. 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.
    (3) Denied. A motion to declare private respondent in default was filed by petitioner. This was
    granted by the trial court. Subsequently, when private respondent appealed the said order of the
    trial court to the Court of appeals, the trial court reversed its decision. Since, the petition filed was
    denied, thus a motion of declaring default against private respondent would not be inconsistent
    and unnecessary.
    WHEREFORE, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Calamba, Laguna, denied the petition, accepted
    the motion to dismiss in favor of private respondent, and denied the motion to declare private
    respondent in default.
    Court of Appeals
    ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not the petition for annulment of contract of sale is based upon fraud, mistake and undue
    influence which vitiated petitioner's consent against the private respondent.
    DECISCION:
    Denied. Requisites of fraud were not met according to the petitioner’s claims. Petitioner could have
    avoided the alleged mistake had she exerted efforts to verify what she claimed to not have known.
    The finding 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 evidence, thus there is no undue influence.
    WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals denied the petition in favor of the private respondent.

    Supreme Court
    ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not to accept the petition or set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals.
    DECISCION:
    Denied. The findings of the Court of Appeals should not be disturbed, it is deemed final.
    WHEREFORE, the petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is
    affirmed.

    You might also like