Roman Catholic Church v.
Pante the Court held that there was NO vitiation of consent, despite
G.R. No. 174118 | April 11, 2012
Supreme Court | Brion, J.
Group 6, Chua
PETITIONERS: The Roman Catholic Church (Church)
Represented by Archbishop of Caceres
RESPONDENTS: Regino Pante
TOPIC:
2. Vices of Consent
a. Mistake
I. Nature of mistake required
Article 1331. In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should
refer to the substance of the thing which is the object of the
contract, or to those conditions which have principally moved one
or both parties to enter into the contract.
Mistake as to the identity or qualifications of one of the parties will
vitiate consent only when such identity or qualifications have been the
principal cause of the contract.
A simple mistake of account shall give rise to its correction.
SUMMARY:
The Church sold a 32 sq. m lot to respondent. 2 years after,
the Church sold a 215 sq. m lot to Spouses Rubi including the strip
previously sold to respondent. The Church claims that the contract with
resp. should be annulled because of respondent’s bad faith in
misrepresenting that he had been an actual occupant of the lot sold to
him, when he merely used it as a passageway. The Court ruled that
such mistake on the part of consent, given the circumstance of the lot
in dispute, it is unthinkable that the Church would consider that the
2x16 sq. m strip of land can be used as a person’s residence. Thus,
misrepresentation from respondent, since it was obvious on the part of
the petitioner that they should have known that the respondent was not
living on the said strip of land per se. Contract between pet. and resp.
is valid and subsisting. Since it was merely used as a passageway,
there could not have been a deliberate, willful, or fraudulent act
committed by Pante that misled the Church into giving its consent to
the sale of the subject lot in his favor. Church retained ownership until
full payment of price, which was made possible when the respondent
consigned its balance (within the 3 year grace period) to the court,
when petitioner refused to receive such payment.
WHY THE COURT SAID WHAT IT SAID
RATIO:
For mistake as to the qualification of one of the parties to vitiate
consent, two requisites must 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
→ the parties’ circumstances – their condition, relationship, and other
attributes – and their conduct at the time of and subsequent to the
contract. These considerations will show what influence the
alleged error exerted on the parties and their intelligent, free, and
voluntary consent to the contract
Contrary to the Church’s contention, the actual occupancy or
residency of a buyer over the land does not appear to be a
necessary qualification that the Church requires before it could
sell its land. Had this been indeed its policy, then neither Pante nor
the spouses Rubi would qualify as buyers of the 32-square meter lot,
as none of them actually occupied or resided on the lot. We note in this
regard that the lot was only a 2x16-meter strip of rural land used as
a passageway from Pante’s house to the municipal road.

there could not have been a deliberate, willful, or fraudulent act
committed by Pante that misled the Church into giving its consent to
the sale of the subject lot in his favor
> Pante did not vitiate Church’s consent
ISSUE:
W/N the contract with petitioner (Pante) is invalid due to his
misrepresentation that he mentioned he was occupying the lot per se.
NO.
> No misrepresentation existed vitiating the seller’s consent and
invalidating the contract
Where consent, however, is given through mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence, or fraud, the contract is deemed
voidable. However, not every mistake renders a contract voidable. The
Civil Code clarifies the nature of mistake that vitiates consent:
Refer to Art. 1331
The court added...
For mistake as to the qualification of one of the parties to vitiate
consent, two requisites must 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.
→ Contrary to the Church’s contention, the actual occupancy or
residency of a buyer over the land does not appear to be a
necessary qualification that the Church requires before it could sell
its land.
MATERIAL FACTS:
> Church owned a 32 sq. m. lot in Bgy. Dinaga, Canaman, Camarines
Sur
> via Contract to Sell and to Buy - Church contracted w/ Regino Pante
for a sale of the lot (thinking that Pante was an actual occupant of the
lot)
> purchase price: P11,200
P1,120 payable as downpayment
Remaining balance: payable in 3 years or until Sept 25, 1995
>
Church claims:
Article 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even
though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties:
(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a
contract;
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence or fraud.
These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper
action in court. They are susceptible of ratification.
> facts stipulated in pre-trial
1. The lot claimed by Pante is a strip of land measuring only 2x16
meters;
2. The lot had been sold by the Church to Pante on September 25,
1992;
3. The lot was included in the sale to the spouses Rubi by the Church;
and
4. Pante expressly manifested and represented to the Church that he
had been actually occupying the lot he offered to buy
RTC: in favor of the Church
Church’s consent to the sale was secured via respondent’s
misrepresentation as an occupant of the said strip of land
Whereas Church’s policy: sell lots only to those who actually
occupy and reside thereon
 Respondent paid the remaining balance P10, 905 by
consigning it with the RTC (because petitioner refused to
accept
> lower court found this fatal to resp’s claim on lot
> in respondent’s delay and his admission that subject
lot had been occupied by spouses Rubi’s predecessors -- RTC
ruled in favor of spouses Rubio
CA: reversed RTC’s ruling
Resp. appealed RTC’s decision
> granted Pante’s special appeal
> contract of pet and resp. As contract of sale
Church made no express reservation of ownership
until full payment of the price is made
Since neither of the two sales was registered, the CA upheld the full
effectiveness of the sale in favor of Pante who first possessed the
lot by using it as a passageway since 1963.
> The records show that the sales of the Church’s lots were made after
a series of conferences with the occupants of the lots.The then parish
priest of Canaman, Fr. Marcaida, was apparently aware that Pante
was not an actual occupant
> Delivery of a thing sold may also be made constructively. Article 1498
of the Civil Code states that:
Article 1498. When the sale is made through a public instrument, the
execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing which
is the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not
appear or cannot clearly be inferred.

If it were contract to sell: resp. Already handed the balance to the court
as agreed upon within the 3-year grace period indicated in the
agreement
> It turns out that the strip of land Pante “owned” was the RIGHT OF
WAY
Under this provision, the sale in favor of Pante would have to be
upheld since the contract executed between the Church and
Pante was duly notarized, converting the deed into a public
instrument
Court affirms decision of CA

Double Sales
Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different
vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may
have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be
movable property.
Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the
person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of
Property.
Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the
person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the
absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided
there is good faith. [Emphasis ours.]