d2015member

Gochanco et al v. RL Dean (1925) Romualdez, J.: The defendant owned land in Masbate. He offered this land to the plaintiffs, in exchange of their land in Pasay. Defendant declared to having the belief that the land in Masbate had 6,000 coconut trees. Before the exchange, the plaintiffs went to inspect t he Masbate land. And so, they entered into a contract of exchange. Now, plaintiffs want to annul this exchange claiming fraud by defendant is stating that there were 6,000 coconut trees. SC says the plaintiffs were not able to prove fraud and he even viewed the Masbate lot himself. The plaintiffs purchased a land of the Pasay Estate. The defendant was the owner of two parcels of land situated in Masbate. The plaintiffs and defendant agreed to exchange their properties, but before the final execution of t he contract, the plaintiff Gochangco went to Masbate to make an examination of defendants land. The defendant stated in a declaration: that the property with all coconut trees growing on it, and I believe there are more than 6,000 coconut trees However, plaintiffs say that the defendant made them fraudulent representations as to the existence of the 6,000 coconut trees. In the CFI-Manila, it was found that: o It was a certain Thompson who induced the both parties to exchange their lands, and not the defendant himself. o It was not proven that the defendant committed fraud and the intention to deceive the plaintiffs o The defendant did not positively say that there were 6,000 coconut trees The plaintiffs question the CFI decision saying that: o It was the defendant who induced the plaintiffs to exchange o The contradictory testimony of the defendant clearly shows the falsity, bad faith, or fraud committed o The defendant did so affirm the number of coconut trees, o That existence of the coconut trees was the primary consideration of the exchange, without which the plaintiffs would not have accepted the transaction o The defendant made it appear that there were more than 6,000 coconut trees on his land yet the fact is that not all of the coconut trees belong to him exclusively.

Issue: Should the exchange be annulled? Held: No Ratio:

That the defendant made them fraudulent representations as to the 6,000 coconut trees is not proven. It does not appear in the record that the defendant deliberately violated the truth in stating his belief that there were suc h a number of coconut trees on said lands. Also, it was shown that the plaintiff viewed the lands and himself estimated that there were there more than 6,000 coconut trees. The facts proven, considered in light of NCC 1484, made applicable to this case by NCC 1541, prevent the SC from holding the action brought by the plaintiffs to be of any merit.

Judgment affirmed insofar as it absolves defendant.