LEGAL NOTE 0054: VOIDABLE CONTRACTS

SOURCE: CORNELIA M. HERNANDEZ VS. CECILIO F. HERNANDEZ (G.R. NO. 158576, 9 MARCH 2011, PEREZ, J.) SUBJECTS: QUITCLAIM; WHEN CONSENT IN CONTRACT IS VOIDABLE. (BRIEF TITLE: HERNANDEZ VS. HERNANDEZ).

WHEN IS A CONTRACT VOIDABLE?

A contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable.[35] 

 

HOW DOES THE COURT DETERMINE WHETHER CONSENT TO A CONTRACT IS VITIATED?

In determining whether consent is vitiated by any of the circumstances mentioned, courts are given a wide latitude in weighing the facts or circumstances in a given case and in deciding in their favor what they believe to have actually occurred, considering the age, physical infirmity, intelligence, relationship, and the conduct of the parties at the time of the making of the contract and subsequent thereto, irrespective of whether the contract is in public or private writing.[36] 

 

HOW  WILL MISTAKE INVALIDATE CONSENT?

And, in order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer to the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract, or those conditions which have principally moved one or both parties to enter the contract.[37] 

[1]               Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

[2]               Rollo, pp. 37-51.

[3]               Decision of the RTC Branch 150, id. at 52-56.

[4]               Transfer Certificate of Title, Annex “C,” id. at 57.

[5]               TSN, 8 December 2000, pp. 4-6.

[6]               Petition.  Rollo, p. 10.

[7]               Brief for the Appellant.  CA rollo, p.72

[8]               Id.

[9]               Id.

[10]             Id.

[11]             Rollo, p. 58.

[12]             Id. at 59.

[13]             Id. at 60-62.

[14]             Id. at 63-68.

[15]             Just Compensation = (Area of land) * (Value per m2)

[16]             Rollo, p. 67.

[17]             Revocation of Special Power of Attorney, Annex “I.” Id. at 69-70.

[18]             Order of Judge Voltaire Rosales, Branch 83.  Id. at 74.

[19]             Petition.  Id. at 14.

[20]             Id.

[21]             Id. at 81-82.

[22]             TSN, 8 December 2000, p. 10.

[23]             Id. at 12-13.

[24]             Id. at 13.

[25]             Rollo, pp. 83-84.

[26]             Complaint, Annex “O,” id. at 85-90.

[27]             Id. at 15.

[28]             Id. at 56.

[29]             Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV. No. 70184, id. at 50.

[30]             Id. at 18.

[31]             Petition – Arguments and Discussion.  Id. at 66.

[32]             Decision, RTC Branch 83.  Id. at 121.

[33]             Art. 1868, Civil Code.

[34]             Brief for the Appellant (Cecilio), CA rollo, p. 73.

[35]             Art. 1330, Civil Code.

[36]             TOLENTINO, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1991, Art. 1330, p. 475 citing Transporte v. Beltran, 51 Off. Gaz. 1434, March, 1955.

[37]             Art. 1331, Civil Code.

[38]             Sec. 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.

[39]             Decision, RTC Branch 83, Tanauan Batangas in Civil Case No. C-023.  Rollo, p. 65.

[40]             The computation herein is the correct application of the formula in the service contract. There was an error in the computation made by Cecilio in its Appellant’s Brief (CArollo, p. 172).  

[41]             Thomas v. Pineda, G.R. No. L-2411, 28 June 1951, citing Severino v. Severino, 44 Phil. 343.

[42]             Roget’s Thesaurus, Fourth ed., 2001, adj.: impartial, unbiased, neutral, free from bias, unprejudiced, fair, impersonal, outside, uninvolved, dispassionate, free from self-interest.

[43]             Petition.  Rollo, p. 22.

[44]             Decision, RTC Branch 83 in Civil Case No. C-023.  Rollo, p. 67.

[45]             G.R. No. 97412, 12 July 1994, 234 SCRA 78, 96-97.