Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 74 views

    Gomez V Linton - Mistake of Fact

    Uploaded by

    Jesha GC
    Linton et. al entered a contract with Gomez to purchase 320,000 sq meters of land for PHP 222,000. However, Linton et. al claimed mistake, as Gomez had misrepresented the boundaries and ownership of the land. Specifically, the most valuable part of the land and many small tracts were not included or owned by Gomez. The court found consent was given through mistake and deceit, violating Article 1265 of the Civil Code. Therefore, Gomez's claim for damages from Linton et. al not consummating the contract was dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Gomez V Linton - Mistake of Fact

    Uploaded by

    Jesha GC
    74 views1 page
    Linton et. al entered a contract with Gomez to purchase 320,000 sq meters of land for PHP 222,000. However, Linton et. al claimed mistake, as Gomez had misrepresented the boundaries and ownership of the land. Specifically, the most valuable part of the land and many small tracts were not included or owned by Gomez. The court found consent was given through mistake and deceit, violating Article 1265 of the Civil Code. Therefore, Gomez's claim for damages from Linton et. al not consummating the contract was dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Mistake of FACT: CONTRACTS (OBLICON)

    Original Title

    16. Gomez v Linton_Mistake of Fact

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Linton et. al entered a contract with Gomez to purchase 320,000 sq meters of land for PHP 222,000. However, Linton et. al claimed mistake, as Gomez had misrepresented the boundaries and ownership of the land. Specifically, the most valuable part of the land and many small tracts were not included or owned by Gomez. The court found consent was given through mistake and deceit, violating Article 1265 of the Civil Code. Therefore, Gomez's claim for damages from Linton et. al not consummating the contract was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    74 views1 page

    Gomez V Linton - Mistake of Fact

    Uploaded by

    Jesha GC
    Linton et. al entered a contract with Gomez to purchase 320,000 sq meters of land for PHP 222,000. However, Linton et. al claimed mistake, as Gomez had misrepresented the boundaries and ownership of the land. Specifically, the most valuable part of the land and many small tracts were not included or owned by Gomez. The court found consent was given through mistake and deceit, violating Article 1265 of the Civil Code. Therefore, Gomez's claim for damages from Linton et. al not consummating the contract was dismissed.

    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 1

    Goli-Cruz (130183)

    JOSE GOMEZ MARINO v. E. LINTON, W. H. LAMBERT, J. NORTHCOTT, AND C. E.


    HAYGOOD, J MENCARINI
    G.R. No. 20744 | January 28, 1924
    Topic: Mistake of Fact
    FACTS:
    In 1921, Jose Gomez Marino alleged that he entered a contract with the respondents of this case
    namely: Linton, Lambert, NorthCott, HayGood and Mencarini (Linton et. al). This contract involved an
    agreement to purchase a 320,000 sq. meters of land in Cavite for the total amount of Php 222,000.00. Gomez
    contends that Linton et. al failed to consummate this contract causing him to lose Php 61,000 as profit along
    with supposedly Php 2,000.00 for advance payments covered by Linton et. al.

    However, Linton et. al contends that the contract that they did agree upon with Gomez was a
    mistake. The events that were foretold by Linton et. al was that before the signing of the contract, Gomez
    showed them the boundaries of the land which was for sale. But, after the contract was signed, they found
    out that the most valuable part of the tract of land was not included in the contract. Linton et. al alleged that
    Gomez could have proposed to convey this instead of letting them believe otherwise. Moreover, the
    respondents of this case contend that the many small tracts within the exterior boundaries of the land that
    were shown to them were actually sold to other and different parties, but Gomez could make titles for.
    Hence, this case at bar.

    ISSUE:

    Whether the consent that was given in Gomez and Linton et. al’s contract was through mistake

    RULING:

    Yes, the consent of Linton et. al that was obtained by Gomez was through mistake. According to
    Article 1265 of the Civil Code “Consent given by reason of error, violence, intimidation, or deceit shall be
    void”. Here, Gomez showed Linton et .al the land that he proposed to sell, and misled and deceived them
    as to its true boundaries. Linton et. al were led to believe such misrepresentations. It is clear that there is
    both error and deceit in the case at bar. Hence, the damages that Gomez seek for Linton et. al not
    consummating their contract is dismissed.

    DISPOSITIVE:

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

    You might also like