Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 95 views

    PBC vs. Lui She

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding contracts for the lease and sale of land between Justina and Wong. Justina initially leased land to Wong and gave him an option to buy, but she later claimed the contracts were obtained through Wong's fraud and machinations. The lower court invalidated all contracts except the initial lease. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the contracts void because the Constitution prohibits aliens from owning land, even if consent was freely given. However, it would be unjust to penalize the current administrators of the estates who did not commit the original violation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PBC vs. Lui She

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    95 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding contracts for the lease and sale of land between Justina and Wong. Justina initially leased land to Wong and gave him an option to buy, but she later claimed the contracts were obtained through Wong's fraud and machinations. The lower court invalidated all contracts except the initial lease. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the contracts void because the Constitution prohibits aliens from owning land, even if consent was freely given. However, it would be unjust to penalize the current administrators of the estates who did not commit the original violation.

    Original Description:

    Voidable Contract

    Original Title

    PBC VS. LUI SHE

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding contracts for the lease and sale of land between Justina and Wong. Justina initially leased land to Wong and gave him an option to buy, but she later claimed the contracts were obtained through Wong's fraud and machinations. The lower court invalidated all contracts except the initial lease. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the contracts void because the Constitution prohibits aliens from owning land, even if consent was freely given. However, it would be unjust to penalize the current administrators of the estates who did not commit the original violation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    95 views2 pages

    PBC vs. Lui She

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    The document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding contracts for the lease and sale of land between Justina and Wong. Justina initially leased land to Wong and gave him an option to buy, but she later claimed the contracts were obtained through Wong's fraud and machinations. The lower court invalidated all contracts except the initial lease. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding the contracts void because the Constitution prohibits aliens from owning land, even if consent was freely given. However, it would be unjust to penalize the current administrators of the estates who did not commit the original violation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION VS.

    LUI SHE,
    G.R. NO. 17587
    CASTRO, J.:

    FACTS:

    Justina who inherited parcels of land in Manila executed a contract


    of lease in favor of Wong, covering a portion already leased to him
    and another portion of the property. The lease was for 50 years,
    although the lessee was give the right to withdraw at anytime from
    the agreement with a stipulated monthly rental.

    She executed another contract giving Wong the option to buy


    the leased premises for P120,000 payable within 10 years at
    monthly installment of P1,000. The option was conditioned on his
    obtaining Philippine citizenship, which was then pending. His
    application for naturalization was withdrawn when it was discovered
    that he was a resident of Rizal.

    She executed two other contracts one extending the term to


    99 years and the term fixing the term of the option of 50 years. In
    the two wills, she bade her legatees to respect the contract she had
    entered into with Wong, but it appears to have a change of heart in
    a codicil. Claiming that the various contracts were made because of
    her machinations and inducements practiced by him, she now
    directed her executor to secure the annulment of the contracts.

    The complaint alleged that Wong obtained the contracts


    through fraud. Wong denied having taken advantage of her trust in
    order to secure the execution of the contracts on question. He
    insisted that the various contracts were freely and voluntarily entered
    into by the parties.

    The lower court declared all the contracts null and void with
    the exception of the first, which is the contract of lease.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the contracts entered into by the parties are


    void.

    DECISION:

    The contract is void. The Court held the lease and the rest of
    the contracts were obtained with the consent of Justina freely given
    and voluntarily, hence the claim that the consent was vitiated due to
    fraud or machination is bereft of merit. However the contacts are not
    necessarily valid because the Constitution provides that aliens are
    not allowed to own lands in the Philippines. The illicit purpose then
    becomes the illegal causa, rendering the contracts void.
    It does not follow from what has been said that because the
    parties are in pari delicto they will be left where they are, without
    relief. For one thing, the original parties who were guilty of violation
    of fundamental charter have died and have since substituted by their
    administrators to whom it would e unjust to impute their guilt. For
    another thing, Article 1416 of the Civil Code provides an exception
    to the pari de licto, that when the agreement is not illegal per se but
    is merely prohibited, and the prohibition of the law is designed for
    the protection of the plaintiff, he may recover what he has paid or
    delivered.

    You might also like