Scribd
Upload
273 views1 page

Asiain V Jalandoni

1) Asiain and Jalandoni owned adjacent properties in Negros Occidental. Asiain offered to sell Jalandoni a portion of his land for 55,000 pesos, gesturing that it was 25-30 hectares with a sugarcane crop that would produce at least 2,000 piculs of sugar. 2) Jalandoni paid 30,000 pesos upon signing a memorandum to purchase 25 hectares "more or less" but later discovered the land was only 18.5 hectares with a crop that would produce 80 piculs of sugar. 3) The court ruled that the size discrepancy constituted a mistake of fact that was a decisive cause for the agreement. The fraud regarding

Uploaded by

BGod
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
273 views1 page

Asiain V Jalandoni

1) Asiain and Jalandoni owned adjacent properties in Negros Occidental. Asiain offered to sell Jalandoni a portion of his land for 55,000 pesos, gesturing that it was 25-30 hectares with a sugarcane crop that would produce at least 2,000 piculs of sugar. 2) Jalandoni paid 30,000 pesos upon signing a memorandum to purchase 25 hectares "more or less" but later discovered the land was only 18.5 hectares with a crop that would produce 80 piculs of sugar. 3) The court ruled that the size discrepancy constituted a mistake of fact that was a decisive cause for the agreement. The fraud regarding

Uploaded by

BGod
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

#29.

Asiain vs Jalandoni
G.R. No. 20435 | October 23, 1923 | Fraud
Pintor
Doctrine:
The mistake of fact as disclosed not alone by the terms of the contract but by the attendant circumstances,
which it is proper to consider in order to throw light upon the intention of the parties, is, as it is sometimes
expressed, the efficient cause of the concoction.
 
 
Facts:
Asiain and Jalandoni are owners of adjacent Haciendas in Negros Occidental. In 1920, Asiain informed
Jalandoni that he was willing to sell a portion of his hacienda for 55,000 Pesos. Using his hand to gesture
to the land, Asiain indicated that the land in question is 25-30 hectars and the crop of sugarcane then
planted would produce not less than 2,000 piculs of sugar. Jalandoni was skeptical about the size of the
land during the negotiations but Asiain repeatedly gave him reassurance about its size.
 
The two entered into a memorandum-agreement for a “Purchase of land containing 25 hectars more or
less of land”. Jalandoni paid 30,000 upon signing. Once he was in possession of the land, he had the land
surveyed and discovered that it consisted of only 80 piculs of sugar and the land was only 18.5 hectars.
 
Due to the unpaid balance, Asiain filed an action to recover the sum of 25,000, or to obtain the certificate
of title and rent. Jalandoni filed a counter-complaint asking for the annulment of the contract and mutual
restitution, plus damages. The Court of First Instance Judge annulled the contract and ordered the refund
of the 30,000 and the return of the land and title.
 
Issue: W/N a rescission is proper based on the discrepancy on the size? – yes
 
Ruling:
The mistake of fact as disclosed not alone by the terms of the contract but by the attendant circumstances,
which it is proper to consider in order to throw light upon the intention of the parties, is, as it is sometimes
expressed, the efficient cause of the concoction.
 
The mistake with reference to the size of the land and the number of piculs of sugar on the land would
deem the contract to be rescindable. Because without such mistake in the agreement, the purchaser would
not have pursued the agreement, therefore, the agreement is inoperative and void.
 
Article 1343 states:
         Misrepresentation made in good faith is not fraudulent, but may constitute error.
And Article 1344 states:
In order that fraud may make a contract voidable, it should be serious and should not have been
employed by both contracting parties.
         Incidental fraud only obliges the person employing it to pay damage.
 
These two articles speak about the effects of the agreement when fraud is involved. In this case, the fraud
regarding the size of the land and the number of piculs of sugar are serious. Due to the gravity of the
fraud, the contract should be voidable.
 
The Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

You might also like