This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-09-01 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| First, the fraud must be dolo causante or it must be fraud in obtaining the consent of the party.[16] This is referred to as causal fraud. The deceit must be serious. The fraud is serious when it is sufficient to impress, or to lead an ordinarily prudent person into error; that which cannot deceive a prudent person cannot be a ground for nullity.[17] The circumstances of each case should be considered, taking into account the personal conditions of the victim.[18] | |||||
|
2014-03-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| With the contract being voidable, petitioners' action to annul the real estate mortgage already prescribed. Article 1390, in relation to Article 1391 of the Civil Code, provides that if the consent of the contracting parties was obtained through fraud, the contract is considered voidable and may be annulled within four years from the time of the discovery of the fraud.[31] The discovery of fraud is reckoned from the time the document was registered in the Register of Deeds in view of the rule that registration was notice to the whole world.[32] Thus, because the mortgage involving the seven lots was registered on September 5, 1984, they had until September 5, 1988 within which to assail the validity of the mortgage. But their complaint was instituted in the RTC only on October 10, 1991.[33] Hence, the action, being by then already prescribed, should be dismissed. | |||||
|
2013-11-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The Court, however, finds that AMC has no legal basis to demand the rescission of the installation contracts. "[R]escission of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and fundamental violations as would defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement. Whether a breach is substantial is largely determined by the attendant circumstances."[53] The provisions on the test run of and seminar on the medical oxygen system are not essential parts of the installation contracts as they do not constitute a vital fragment/part of the centralized medical oxygen system. | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence has shown that in order to constitute fraud that provides basis to annul contracts, it must fulfill two conditions. First, the fraud must be dolo causante or it must be fraud in obtaining the consent of the party. Second, this fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In Viloria v. Continental Airlines,[58] this Court held that: Under Article 1338 of the Civil Code, there is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to. In order that fraud may vitiate consent, it must be the causal (dolo causante), not merely the incidental (dolo incidente), inducement to the making of the contract. In Samson v. Court of Appeals, causal fraud was defined as "a deception employed by one party prior to or simultaneous to the contract in order to secure the consent of the other." | |||||
|
2013-10-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that rescission (more appropriately, resolution) of a contract will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only for such substantial and fundamental violations as would defeat the very object of the parties in making the agreement.[6] | |||||
|
2012-10-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Going into the merits of the case, it is best to set it against the backdrop of the basic tenet that "in an action based on a breach of contract of carriage, the aggrieved party does not have to prove that the common carrier was at fault or was negligent. All that he has to prove is the existence of the contract and the fact of its non-performance by the carrier."[7] | |||||