Civil Law,  Legally Yours

Gochangco vs. Dean

Gochangco vs. Dean

G.R. No. L-23109; March 20, 1925

FACTS:

The plaintiffs had purchased a land of the Pasay Estate by installments. The defendant was the owner of two parcels of land situated in Masbate. The plaintiffs and defendant agreed to exchange their respective properties, but before the final execution of the contract of exchange, the plaintiff Gochangco went to Masbate to make an examination of the parcels of land offered for exchange by the defendant.

The contract of exchange was later executed. In the Deed, the defendant stated, among other things, the following:

“It is also declared that the said described property is sold will all coconut trees growing on it, and I declared that I believe there are more than 6,000 coconut trees so growing, together with any and all improvements of any kind whatsoever existing on the said land including all movable goods, chattel, etc., found thereof.”

The plaintiffs allege that defendant made false and fraudulent representations as to the existence of 6,000 coconut trees on his lands in Masbate offered for exchange when in fact there were only 5,885 coconut trees in the Masbate land. Plaintiffs aver that these representations were the primary consideration of the contract of exchange

ISSUE:

Whether or not plaintiff has a right to the rescission of the contract and return of the amount paid by reason of defendant’s alleged misrepresentation

HELD:

Plaintiffs contentions were not duly proven. It does not appear in the record that the defendant deliberately violated the truth in stating his belief that there were such a number of coconut trees on said lands. Furthermore, it was shown that the plaintiff viewed the lands and himself estimated that there were there more than six thousand coconut trees.

The facts herein proven, considered in the light of the provisions contained in article 1484 of the Civil Code, made applicable to this case by article 1541 of said Code, prevent us from holding the action brought by the plaintiffs to be of any merit. They have not established their alleged right to the judgment prayed for in their complaint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: