Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    10 Theis Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    JC Villaver
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court to annul the deed of sale between petitioners Heinzrich Theis and Betty Theis and respondent Calsons Development Corporation due to a mistake in the identification of the parcels of land. The private respondent mistakenly sold the petitioners a parcel they did not own. When the mistake was discovered, the private respondent offered alternative parcels or double reimbursement, but the petitioners refused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the annulment, finding a substantial mistake of fact.

    Copyright:

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

    10 Theis Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    JC Villaver
    100 views1 page
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court to annul the deed of sale between petitioners Heinzrich Theis and Betty Theis and respondent Calsons Development Corporation due to a mistake in the identification of the parcels of land. The private respondent mistakenly sold the petitioners a parcel they did not own. When the mistake was discovered, the private respondent offered alternative parcels or double reimbursement, but the petitioners refused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the annulment, finding a substantial mistake of fact.

    Original Title

    10-Theis-vs-CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court to annul the deed of sale between petitioners Heinzrich Theis and Betty Theis and respondent Calsons Development Corporation due to a mistake in the identification of the parcels of land. The private respondent mistakenly sold the petitioners a parcel they did not own. When the mistake was discovered, the private respondent offered alternative parcels or double reimbursement, but the petitioners refused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the annulment, finding a substantial mistake of fact.

    Copyright:

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

    10 Theis Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    JC Villaver
    The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court to annul the deed of sale between petitioners Heinzrich Theis and Betty Theis and respondent Calsons Development Corporation due to a mistake in the identification of the parcels of land. The private respondent mistakenly sold the petitioners a parcel they did not own. When the mistake was discovered, the private respondent offered alternative parcels or double reimbursement, but the petitioners refused. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the annulment, finding a substantial mistake of fact.

    Copyright:

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

    Title 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. (G.R. No. 126013. February 12, 1997)
    Facts of the Case Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation is the owner of three (3) adjacent
    parcels of land in Tagaytay City (parcel 1, 2, and 3), and constructed a two-storey house
    on parcel no. 3. However, in a survey conducted, the lot where the two-storey house
    stands was mistakenly indicated to be covered by parcel 1 instead, while the two idle
    lands were mistaken to be on parcel 4 – a lot private respondent did not own. Unaware
    of the mistake, and believing that they owned the lot, they sold said parcel no. 4 to
    petitioners. Petitioners did not immediately occupy and take possession of the two (2)
    idle parcels of land, and instead went to Germany. Upon their return, they discovered
    that parcel no. 4 was owned by another person, and that the lots actually sold to them
    were parcel nos. 2 and 3. Petitioners insisted that they wanted parcel no. 4. However,
    private respondent could not sell them the land as they did not own it. Private
    respondent offered to them parcel nos. 1 and 2. However, petitioners adamantly
    rejected the good faith offer, and insisted on taking parcel no. 3, where the two-storey
    house stands, in addition to parcel no. 2. The refusal of petitioners prompted private
    respondent to make another offer - the return of an amount double the price paid by
    petitioners. Petitioners still refused and stubbornly insisted in their stand. Private
    respondent was then compelled to file an action for annulment of deed of sale and
    reconveyance of the properties in the Regional Trial Court.
    Argument & The trial court rendered judgment in favor of private respondent. The trial court
    Ruling (TC) annulled said contract of sale after finding that there was indeed a mistake in the
    identification of the parcels of land intended to be the subject matter of said sale, and
    thus voidable.
    Argument & The Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, who affirmed the decision of the Trial
    Ruling (CA) Court.
    Issue Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the decision of the Trial Court, to annul the
    deed of sale between Petitioner and Respondent
    SC Ruling The petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
    Costs against the petitioner.
    Ratio Decidendi In the case at bar, the private respondent obviously committed an honest mistake in
    selling parcel no. 4. As correctly noted by the Court of Appeals, it is quite impossible for
    said private respondent to sell the lot in question as they do not own it. 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. Since there was a substantial mistake of fact, the deed of sale can be
    annulled.

    You might also like