SILVERIO Q. CORNEJO vs. MANUEL B. CALUPITAN, D.B.

CASTANEDA, AND EUSTACIO BARRERA

G.R. No. L-2342, October 27, 1950

MONTEMAYOR, J.:

Facts: On January 1945, defendant Manuel Calupitan, the owner of a parcel of land in the barrio
of Mayatobo, Candelaria, Tayabas, an area of 110.9125 hectares authorized his co-defendants
D.B. Castaneda, Eustacio Barrera, real estate broker operating in manila to sell the said parcel.
On January 4, 1945, defendant Calupitan accepted the offer made by the plaintiff Cornejo, at the
price of P650,000 in Japanese military notes. On January 6, 1945, Cornejo delivered only
P65,000 to defendant broker Castaneda & Barrera to deliver for Calupitan and the balance to
paid on January 25, 1945. Calupitan wrote out a letter receipt of acceptance specifying the terms
of payment of the balance approving the stipulated date on or before January 25, 1945. This
transaction or proposition was reduced to writing in the form of a receipt. A carbon copy was
given to Calupitan by the brokers on the same date, January 6, 1945, presumably for his approval
and acceptance, together with the P65,000 earnest money in Japanese military notes. Calupitan,
however, instead of merely affixing his signature at the foot thereof to show his conformity, as
he had formerly done with the original offer, wrote out a receipt for the P65,000 earnest money
in military notes delivered to him by Castañeda & Barrera, specifying his own terms as to the
payment of the balance. The balance of P585,000 was never paid or delivered by Cornejo nor
received by Calupitan. Cornejo claims that he had been looking in vain for Calupitan to deliver
to him the said balance in Japanese military notes but that Calupitan had either avoided him,
hidden himself or had left the money to him. Calupitan on the other hand, insists that he never
avoided Cornejo nor purposely prevented delivery of the balance of the purchase price but that
for security reasons he made it a point not to disclose his address because he was being sought by
the Japanese military authorities for his guerrilla activities. The fact is that on January 22, 1945,
after supposedly failing to deliver the balance of P585,000 in Japanese war notes to Calupitan,
Cornejo deposited the sum with the Clerk of Court, securing the corresponding receipt therefor,
and then on the same day Cornejo filed the corresponding complaint in court against Calupitan
and the two real estate brokers for specific performance and for payment of damages.

Issue: Whether or not the new offer made by the appellant to buy the land on the condition that
he has to pay an earnest money of P65,000 and the balance of P585,000 in Japanese war notes on
or before January 25, 1945, was accepted by Calupitan, and therefore a new contract binding
upon the parties was perfected as contended by the appellant.

Held: No. The new offer made by the appellant to buy the land was not accepted by Calupitan,
and the contact is not perfected at all. According to Article 1319 of the New Civil Code that
“Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the
cause which are to constitute the contract”. The contract between Cornejo and Calupitan had
been abandoned and rendered void by Cornejo himself, and that as to new proposition made by
Cornejo, there was no meeting of minds of the parties for it was not accepted entirely by
Calupitan, consequently the contract of sale of the land in question was not perfected and so
Calupitan may not be compelled to convey said land to plaintiff-appellant. Calupitan is ordered
to return to the plaintiff the value of the P65,000 Japanese war notes he received, which value is
to be ascertained according to the Ballantyne schedule as of January 6, 1945 in Manila is hereby
fixed at P541.66 with legal interest from January 6, 1945 until paid.
 ANDREA DUMASUG vs. FELIX MODELO

G.R. No. L-10462, March 16, 1916

TORRES, J.:

Facts: On June 17, 1912, counsel for petitioner Andrea Dumasug filed a written complaint in the
Court of First Instance of Cebu, in which he alleged that about the month of November, 1911,
defendant persuaded plaintiff to sign a document by falsely and maliciously making her believe
that it contained an engagement on plaintiff's part to pay defendant a certain sum of money by
reason of a lawsuit in which plaintiff Dumasug was one of the parties and was protected and
aided by defendant; that this document, plaintiff, who does not know how to write, signed by
affixing her mark thereto, believing in good faith that defendant had told her the truth and that
said document referred to the expenses incurred by defendant. Three months after the execution
of said document, defendant took possession of a carabao belonging to plaintiff and also of two
parcels of land, situated in the barrio of Katang, pueblo of Argao, Cebu and notified plaintiff that
she had conveyed to him by absolute sale said parcels of land and the plow carabao; that in spite
of plaintiff's opposition and protests, defendant took possession of said property and, up to the
date of the complaint, continued to hold possession thereof and to enjoy the products of the lands
and of the labor of the carabao; and that, by reason of such acts, defendant had caused loss and
damage to plaintiff in the sum of P1,000. Said counsel therefore prayed the court to render
judgment by declaring null and void and of no value whatever the alleged contract of purchase
and sale of the carabao and the two parcels of land described in the complaint, to order defendant
to restore to plaintiff said work animal and lands, and, besides, to pay her the sum of P1,000 for
the loss and damage caused her, in addition to the costs of the suit.

Issue: Whether or not the instrument of purchase and sale of two parcels of land and a plow
carabao is null and void.

Held: Yes. The instrument of purchase of sale of two parcels of land a plow carabao is null and
void. It is, then, perfectly evident that the document, by means of which defendant made himself
the owner of the properties in question is not the instrument of debt which Andrea Dumasug had
signed, and if it is the same one its contents were not duly and faithfully explained to plaintiff in
the act of its execution. In either case, the consent said to have been given by Andrea Dumasug
in said document is null and void, as it was given by mistake. This error invalidates the contract
because according to the Article 1331 of the New Civil Code that “In order that mistake may
invalidate consent, it should refer to the subject of the thing which is the object of the contract, or
to those conditions which have principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract”
in which this mistake of fact may arise from ignorance or lack of knowledge. Article 1303 of the
Civil Code is therefore, applicable, which prescribes that: “When the nullity of an obligation has
been declared, the contracting parties shall restore to each other the things which have been the
object of the contract with their fruits, and the value with its interest.”