This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| According to Article 1338 of the Civil Code, there is fraud when one of the contracting parties, through insidious words or machinations, induces the other to enter into the contract that, without the inducement, he would not have agreed to. Yet, fraud, to vitiate consent, must be the causal (dolo causante), not merely the incidental (dolo incidente), inducement to the making of the contract.[14] In Samson v. Court of Appeals,[15] causal fraud is defined as "a deception employed by one party prior to or simultaneous to the contract in order to secure the consent of the other."[16] | |||||
|
2013-11-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Under Article 1344, the fraud must be serious to annul or avoid a contract and render it voidable. This fraud or deception must be so material that had it not been present, the defrauded party would not have entered into the contract. In the recent case of Spouses Carmen S. Tongson and Jose C. Tongson, et al., v. Emergency Pawnshop Bula, Inc.,[54] this Court provided some examples of what constituted dolo causante or causal fraud: Some of the instances where this Court found the existence of causal fraud include: (1) when the seller, who had no intention to part with her property, was "tricked into believing" that what she signed were papers pertinent to her application for the reconstitution of her burned certificate of title, not a deed of sale; (2) when the signature of the authorized corporate officer was forged; or (3) when the seller was seriously ill, and died a week after signing the deed of sale raising doubts on whether the seller could have read, or fully understood, the contents of the documents he signed or of the consequences of his act.[55] (Citations omitted) | |||||
|
2008-02-04 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| How the P56.6 million released to LTFI was utilized became the subject matter of 25 criminal cases. In a Resolution in G.R. Nos. 103754-78 dated October 22, 1992,[3] this Court quashed 19 of the 25 Informations filed against petitioner Ocampo. The Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan dismissed one case[4] on demurrer to evidence. In its Decision promulgated on March 8, 2002, the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan dismissed two[5] of five criminal cases for malversation of public funds against petitioners. On motion for reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan dismissed one[6] more case in a Resolution promulgated on January 6, 2003. The two remaining cases are the subject matters in the instant consolidated petitions. | |||||