7/22/2019 The Roman Catholic Church vs Pante Case Digest
1/3
CONTRACTS: MISTAKE; VOIDABLE CONTRACT
CASE NAME: The Roman Catholic Church vs. Regino Pante
G.R. No.: G.R. No. 174118
Date: April 11, 2012
Petitioner: The Roman Catholic Church, represented by the
Archbishop of CaceresRespondent: Regino Pante
FACTS:
The Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of
Caceres sold a 32-
square meter lot to the respondent Regino Pante, who in the
belief of the Church
as an actual occupant of the lot. Terms fixed at a purchase
price of P 11,200, a
down payment P 1,120 and a balance payable in three years.
Subsequently, the
Church sold a lot to the spouses Rubi, which included the lot
that was previously
sold to the respondent Pante. Then, the spouses Rubi erected a
fence along the
lot, including the lot of Pante, which blocked the access of
Pante from their family
home to the municipal road. Pante instituted an action before
the RTC to annul
the sale between the Church and spouses Rubi.
The Church contended that Pante misrepresented that they were
the actual
occupant of the said lot. Also, the sale was a mistake that
would constitute a
voidable contract because Pante made them believe that he was a
qualified
occupant and Pante was aware that they sell lots only to those
occupants andresidents. Pante averred that they were using it as
passageway from his family
home to the road, which signifies that he is really using the
actual lot.
The RTC ruled in favor to the Church, for it was a
misrepresentation of
Pante and he delayed in the payment of the lot for he only
consigned the balance
with the RTC after the church refused to accept the
payments.
Then, the respondent Pante appealed to the appellate court,
which
reversed the decision of the RTC and granted the annulment of
the sale. Thus, apetition by the Church was brought before the
certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sale was a voidable contract?
7/22/2019 The Roman Catholic Church vs Pante Case Digest
2/3
HELD: No, the Supreme Court ruled that there were no
misrepresentation made
that would vitiate the consent and render the contract as
voidable. As consent as
one of the essential requisites of a valid contract and such
consent should be free,
voluntary, willful and a reasonable understanding of the various
obligations that
the parties have assumed for themselves. However if consent is
given through
mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence and fraud, it
would render a
contract voidable. On Article 1331 of the Civil Code, mistake
could only render a
contract voidable if the following requisites 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.
In this case, there is no mistake as to the qualifications as to
the policy ofthe Church on selling only for those who are occupants
and residents, for neither
Pante nor spouses Rubi would qualify as residents of the said
32-square meter lot,
as none of them had occupied or resided on the lot. The lot is a
passageway for
the respondent Pante, thus it is considered as his RIGHT OF
WAY.
Also, records show that the Parish Priest was aware that Parte
was not an actual
occupant and still he allowed the sale to Pante. So, the Church
cannot by any
means contend that the Church was misled by the act of Pante,
that there was
vitiation of consent on the said sale.
In Article 1390 of the Civil Code declares that voidable
contracts are
binding, unless annulled by a proper court action. From the time
the sale to Pante
was made and up until it sold the subject property to the
spouses Rubi, the
Church made no move to reject the contract with Pante; it did
not even return the
down payment he paid. The Churchs bad faith in selling the lot
to Rubi without
annulling its contract with Pante negates its claim for
damages.
There was no vitiation of consent; therefore, the contract
between theChurch and Pante stands valid and existing. The delay of
Pante in paying the full
price could not nullify the contract, since it was a contract of
sale (as correctly
observed by the CA). In the terms of the contract, it did not
stipulate that the
Church will retain ownership until full payment of the price.
The right to
repurchase given to the Church if ever Pante fails to pay within
the grace period
