CASE DIGEST: Gregorio Fule vs CA, Cruz and Belarmino G.R. No. 112212. March 2, 1998 (286 SCRA 698) (Yellow Pad digest)

Gregorio Fule vs CA, Cruz and Belarmino (286 SCRA 698)

Facts:

·      Gregorio Fule, a banker and jeweler, acquired a 10 hectare of  property in Rizal which used to be under the name of Fr. Jacobe on which (Jacobe) mortgaged the land to the Bank of Alaminos to secure a loan of P10,000. The mortgage was forclosed and the property later offered for public auction.

·      1984, Gregorio asked Remilia and Oliva to look for a buyer (property), the found Dr. Cruz, just so happens that Gregorio wants the 2.5 carat EMERALD CUT EARRINGS of Dr. Ninevetch Cruz (MD), Gregorio  offered to buy the jewelry for P100,000, was refused, he then offered $6000 in the exchange rate of $1 is to P25, was still refused. They agreed, however, on the land of Fule for the jewelry.

·      Dr. Cruz asked her counsel, Atty. Belarmino to check the land for any impediments. There was. Gregorio then executed to a DEED OF REDEMPTION to cut through the legal impediment. Land is now A-Okay J

·      Dr. Cruz went to the bank with Gregorio to show the jewelry and said (non-verbatim “Oy bobo check this shit out, tapat mo sa ilaw to see if it’s fake or not. ICE ba?”. Gregorio checked it and was happy. Gregorio and the counsel executed a DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE. The Property was for P200,000 and the Jewelry for P160,000, both agreed that Dr. Cruz will pay the remaining P40,000 by cash.

·      Gregorio happy with his jewelry, went straight to a appraiser named *wait for it* DIMAYUGA hahahahaha but anyway, Dimayuga  said that the jewel is fake.

·      Gregorio then filed a complaint before the RTC, praying for the CONTRACT OF SALE  be deemed null and void.

·      RTC ruled in favor of Cruz stating that Gerggy boy was in badfaith. CA affirmed.

Issue: W/ON CA erred in upholding the validity of the Contract of Sale

Held: No. The NCC provides that the Contract of Sale  is consensual, and is perfected when the minds met. Contract may be rendered void if (1) Party has no capacity to give consent, and (2) if consent was gained because of VIMFU (Violence, Intimidation, Mistake, Fraud, and Undue Influence). Dr. Cruz was not Fraudulent. SC said that Greggy Boy was also a jeweler, he was given time to inspect the jewel before perfecting the contract.

Source and Full text: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1998/mar1998/112212.htm