Scribd
Upload
82 views

ECE Realty and Development Inc. V Rachel Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, September 1, 2014

The document discusses the legal requirements to establish fraud sufficient to annul a contract under Philippine jurisprudence. Specifically, it must (1) be dolo causante or fraud that obtained consent, referred to as causal fraud, and (2) be proven by clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance. Causal fraud is a serious deception that could deceive an ordinary prudent person. The document also analyzes two cases, finding misrepresentation in advertisements was not causal fraud to annul a contract in one case.

Uploaded by

eun hee kim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views

ECE Realty and Development Inc. V Rachel Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, September 1, 2014

The document discusses the legal requirements to establish fraud sufficient to annul a contract under Philippine jurisprudence. Specifically, it must (1) be dolo causante or fraud that obtained consent, referred to as causal fraud, and (2) be proven by clear and convincing evidence rather than a preponderance. Causal fraud is a serious deception that could deceive an ordinary prudent person. The document also analyzes two cases, finding misrepresentation in advertisements was not causal fraud to annul a contract in one case.

Uploaded by

eun hee kim
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

In the present case, the Church contends that its consent to sell the lot was given on the

mistaken
impression arising from Pante’s fraudulent misrepresentation that he had been the actual occupant of the
lot. Willful misrepresentation existed because of its policy to sell its lands only to their actual occupants or
residents. 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.

ECE Realty and Development Inc. v Rachel Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, September 1, 2014
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. 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 ordinary prudent person into error; that which cannot deceive a prudent
person cannot be a ground for nullity. The circumstances of each case should be considered, taking into
account the personal conditions of the victim. Second, the fraud must be proven by clear and convincing
evidence and not merely by a preponderance thereof.

In the present case, this Court finds that petitioner is guilty of false representation of a fact. This is
evidenced by its printed advertisements indicating that its subject condominium project is located in
Makati City when, in fact, it is in Pasay City. However, insofar as the present case is concerned, the Court
agrees with the Housing and Land Use Arbiter, the HLURB Board of Commissioners, and the Office of
the President, that the misrepresentation made by petitioner in its advertisements does not constitute
causal fraud which would have been a valid basis in annulling the Contract to Sell between petitioner and
respondent.

Metropolitan v. Prosperity, G.R. No. 154390, March 17, 2014


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. In Samson v. Court of
Appeals, 238 SCRA 397 (1994), 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.”

You might also like