THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH VS.

REGINO PANTE
G.R. No. 174118 April 11, 2012
Petitioner: The Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of Caceres
Respondent: Regino Pante

FACTS:

The Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of Caceres owned a 32-
square meter lot that measured 2x16 meters located in Barangay Dinaga, Canaman,
Camarines Sur. 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
P11,200, a down payment P1,120 and a balance payable in three years or until
September 25, 1995. Subsequently, the Church sold a 215-square 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, insofar as it
included the lot previously sold to him. 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 avoidable contract because Pante made them believe that he was a qualified
occupant and Pante was aware that they sell lots only to those occupants and residents.
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, a petition by the Church was
brought before the certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sale was a voidable contract?

HELD:

No, the Supreme Court ruled that there was 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 of the 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 Pante 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.

As stipulated in Article 1390 of the Civil Code, declares that voidable contracts are
binding, unless annulled by a proper court action. The Church took no action to revoke
the contract with Pante and did not even return the down payment he received from the
time the sale to Pante was made until it sold the subject property to the spouses Rubi.
The Church's claim for damages is invalidated by its bad faith in selling the lot to Rubi
without canceling its agreement with Pante. Because there was no vitiation of consent,
the agreement between the Church and Pante is still in effect and is lawful. 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 provided would have been
unnecessary had ownership not already passed to Pante.