Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 66 views

    19 Asiain v. Jalandoni

    Uploaded by

    Janine Oliva
    Asiain agreed to sell Jalandoni a portion of his land estimated to contain 25-30 hectares and produce at least 2,000 piculs of sugar cane. However, the land only contained 18 hectares and produced 800 piculs. The court found there was a mutual mistake between the parties regarding the quantity of land and crop. As such, the agreement was annulled and the parties were returned to their positions before negotiations began.

    Copyright:

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

    19 Asiain v. Jalandoni

    Uploaded by

    Janine Oliva
    66 views1 page
    Asiain agreed to sell Jalandoni a portion of his land estimated to contain 25-30 hectares and produce at least 2,000 piculs of sugar cane. However, the land only contained 18 hectares and produced 800 piculs. The court found there was a mutual mistake between the parties regarding the quantity of land and crop. As such, the agreement was annulled and the parties were returned to their positions before negotiations began.

    Original Title

    19 Asiain v. Jalandoni.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Asiain agreed to sell Jalandoni a portion of his land estimated to contain 25-30 hectares and produce at least 2,000 piculs of sugar cane. However, the land only contained 18 hectares and produced 800 piculs. The court found there was a mutual mistake between the parties regarding the quantity of land and crop. As such, the agreement was annulled and the parties were returned to their positions before negotiations began.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    66 views1 page

    19 Asiain v. Jalandoni

    Uploaded by

    Janine Oliva
    Asiain agreed to sell Jalandoni a portion of his land estimated to contain 25-30 hectares and produce at least 2,000 piculs of sugar cane. However, the land only contained 18 hectares and produced 800 piculs. The court found there was a mutual mistake between the parties regarding the quantity of land and crop. As such, the agreement was annulled and the parties were returned to their positions before negotiations began.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Asiain v.

    Jalandoni
    Topic: Mistake and error (Vices of Consent)

    Parties
    a) Asiain – owner of a hacienda “Maria” in La Carlota, Occidental Negros
    b) Jalandoni – owner of another hacienda adjoining the hacienda of Asiain

    FACTS
     Asiain conveyed to Jaladoni his willing to sell a portion of his hacienda for 55,000.00 and with a
    wave of his hand indicated the tract of land in question affirming that it contained 25 and 30
    hectares and that the crop of sugar cane will produce no less than 2,000 piculs.
     However, Jaladoni is doubtful to the extent of the land and as to the amount of the crop on it.
     Parties signed memorandum-agreement sometime later in July.
     To recover the balance or to obtain the certificate of title and the rent from Jalandoni, Asiain
    constituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.
     Jalandoni, in his answer and counter-complaint asked that he be absolved from the complaint
    stating that the contract be annulled.
    ISSUE
     Whether the difference between the agreement of the parties and the subsequent actual
    dimension of the land constitute to a mistake and error of consent
    o Agreement:
     Land containing 25 hectares more or less
     Crop estimated and warranted at 2,000 piculs
    o Reality:
     Land contained only a little more than 18 hectares
     Crop produce of 800 piculs
    RULING
     There is a mutual mistake as to the quantity of the land sold and the amount of the standing
    crop.
    o The use of the word “more or less” can only be considered as covering inconsiderable or
    small differences and do not determine the character of the sale. This may relieve from
    exactness but not from gross deficiency.
     The mistake is disclosed not by the terms of the contract but by the attendant circumstances
    which highlights the intention of the parties.
     Without such mistake, the agreement would have not been made and since this is true, the
    agreement is inoperative.
     The Court found that the case is more nearly akin to a bilateral mistake for which relief should
    be granted. As a result, the parties are referred back in the exact positions before they became
    involved in the negotiations and before the accomplishment of the agreement.

    You might also like