The Roman Catholic Church vs.
Regino Pante Issue
The Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of Caceres sold a 32-square
meter lot to the respondent Regino Pante, who in the belief of the Church as an actual
occupant of the lot. Terms fixed at a purchase price of P 11,200, a down payment P 1,120
and a balance payable in three years. Subsequently, the Church sold a lot to the spouses
Rubi, which included the lot that was previously sold to the respondent Pante. Then, the
spouses Rubi erected a fence along the lot, including the lot of Pante, which blocked the
access of Pante from their family home to the municipal road. Pante instituted an action
before the RTC to annul the sale between the Church and spouses Rubi.
The Church contended that Pante misrepresented that they were the actual
occupant of the said lot. Also, the sale was a mistake that would constitute a voidable
contract because Pante made them believe that he was a qualified occupant and Pante
was aware that they sell lots only to those occupants and residents. Pante averred that
they were using it as passageway from his family home to the road, which signifies that he
is really using the actual lot.
The RTC ruled in favor to the Church, for it was a misrepresentation of Pante
and he delayed in the payment of the lot for he only consigned the balance with the RTC
after the church refused to accept the payments.
Then, the respondent Pante appealed to the appellate court, which reversed the
decision of the RTC and granted the annulment of the sale. Thus, a petition by the Church
was brought before the certiorari.
Ruling
No, the Supreme Court ruled that there were no misrepresentation made that
Whether or not the sale would vitiate the consent and render the contract as voidable. As consent as one
was a voidable contract?
of the essential requisites of a valid contract and such consent should be free,
voluntary, willful and a reasonable understanding of the various obligations that
the parties have assumed for themselves. However if consent is given through
mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence and fraud, it would render a
contract voidable. On Article 1331 of the Civil Code, mistake could only render a
contract voidable if the following requisites concur: 1. the mistake must be either
with regard to the identity or with regard to the qualification of one of the
contracting parties; and 2. the identity or qualification must have been the
principal consideration for the celebration of the contract.
In this case, there is no mistake as to the qualifications as to the policy
of the Church on selling only for those who are occupants and residents, for
neither Pante nor spouses Rubi would qualify as residents of the said 32-square
meter lot, as none of them had occupied or resided on the lot. The lot is a
passageway for the respondent Pante, thus it is considered as his RIGHT OF
WAY.
Also, records show that the Parish Priest was aware that Parte was not an actual
occupant and still he allowed the sale to Pante. So, the Church cannot by any
means contend that the Church was misled by the act of Pante, that there was
vitiation of consent on the said sale.
In Article 1390 of the Civil Code declares that voidable contracts are binding,
unless annulled by a proper court action. From the time the sale to Pante was
made and up until it sold the subject property to the spouses Rubi, the Church
made no move to reject the contract with Pante; it did not even return the down
payment he paid. The Churchs bad faith in selling the lot to Rubi without
annulling its contract with Pante negates its claim for damages.
There was no vitiation of consent; therefore, the contract between the Church
and Pante stands valid and existing. The delay of Pante in paying the full price
could not nullify the contract, since it was a contract of sale (as correctly
observed by the CA). In the terms of the contract, it did not stipulate that the
Church will retain ownership until full payment of the price. The right to
repurchase given to the Church if ever Pante fails to pay within the grace period
provided would have been unnecessary had ownership not already passed to
Pante.