GR 20744; (January, 1924)

EN BANC

G.R. No. 20744; January 28, 1924

JOSE GOMEZ MARIÑO, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
E. LINTON, W.H. LAMBERT, J. NORTHCOTT, and C.E. HAYGOOD, defendants-appellees.
J. MENCARINI, defendant-appellant.

Leoncio M. Aranda for appellant Mencarini.
Recto and Casal for appellant Gomez Marino.
Gibbs and McDonough for appellees.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff alleges that on October 11, 1921, he entered into a contract with the defendants in which they agreed to purchase 320,000 square meters of land in the Province of Cavite for the sum of P222,000; that the defendants failed to carry out the contract and to consummate the purchase; that by reason thereof he lost P61,000, which would have been the amount of his profit and commission on the deal, together with an advance payment of P2,000 which he made to the owners, all of which he seeks to recover from the defendants.

In their answer, Linton, Lambert, Northcott, and Haygood made a general denial, and, as a special defense, allege, first, that plaintiff falsely represented the boundaries of the land; second, that he falsely represented that certain buildings were included in the description; third, that he had no authority to sell a large portion of the land; and, fourth, that he represented the entire tract shown to the defendants as the property to be sold, when in truth and in fact various parcels thereof had previously been sold to other persons; that, by reason of such false representations, the defendants were deceived in making the contract to purchase, and that upon discovery of their falsity, and for such reason, they refused to consummate the deal.

In a cross-complaint they ask for P5,000 as damages.

The defendant Mencarini first made a general denial and later filed an amended answer, in which after making certain allegations of his special defense, he admits in legal effect all of the allegations of the contract, and seeks to recover P5,000 from his codefendants, because of their alleged wrongful failure to consummate the purchase.

The trial court found the allegations made in the further and separate answer of Linton, Lambert, Northcott, and Haygood to be true, and dismissed the complaint as to them and their counterclaim, as well as the counterclaim of the defendant Mencarini.

The plaintiff Marino appeals, contending that “the lower court erred in finding that the plaintiff offered to sell to the defendants all the land included within the red pencil mark in the blueprint Exhibit 1, and dismissing the complaint accordingly.”

The appellant Mencarini contends that the lower court erred in dismissing his cross-complaint.

JOHNS, J.:

The question involved in one of fact which largely depends on the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court who saw and heard them testify found for the defendants Linton, Lambert, Northcott, and Haygood upon all the issues, giving his reasons therefor in a well-written opinion, in which he carefully analyzed all the facts.

The appellees admit the signing of the contract known in the record as Exhibit 1, in and by which they agreed to purchase certain land at an agreed price of P222,000. They claim that before the signing of the contract, the plaintiff took them out over the land, which he proposed to sell, and showed them the corners and its exterior boundaries. After the contract was signed, and upon making further examination of the record title, it was found that a large portion of the most valuable part of the tract was not included in the land, which the plaintiff could or proposed to convey. They also claim that he proposed to sell all of the lands lying within the exterior boundaries of the land, which he showed to them; and that in truth and in fact many small tracts within the exterior boundaries had previously been sold to other and different parties, and to which the plaintiff could not make title.

Upon the disputed facts and the main question involved, the evidence of the appellees is clear and convincing, and shows conclusively that they were misled and deceived by the plaintiff as to the actual boundaries of the land, and, as to the important fact, that plaintiff could not make a good title to all of the land within the boundaries.

A clear case for the defense has been made out under article 1265 of the Civil Code and the authorities there cited, which provides:

Consent given by reason of error, violence, intimidation, or deceit shall be void.

In the instant case, the evidence is conclusive that there was both error and deceit.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Batas Pinas