You are on page 1of 1

Asiain v.

Jalandoni
Topic: Mistake and error (Vices of Consent)

Parties
a) Asiain – owner of a hacienda “Maria” in La Carlota, Occidental Negros
b) Jalandoni – owner of another hacienda adjoining the hacienda of Asiain

FACTS
 Asiain conveyed to Jaladoni his willing to sell a portion of his hacienda for 55,000.00 and with a
wave of his hand indicated the tract of land in question affirming that it contained 25 and 30
hectares and that the crop of sugar cane will produce no less than 2,000 piculs.
 However, Jaladoni is doubtful to the extent of the land and as to the amount of the crop on it.
 Parties signed memorandum-agreement sometime later in July.
 To recover the balance or to obtain the certificate of title and the rent from Jalandoni, Asiain
constituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros.
 Jalandoni, in his answer and counter-complaint asked that he be absolved from the complaint
stating that the contract be annulled.
ISSUE
 Whether the difference between the agreement of the parties and the subsequent actual
dimension of the land constitute to a mistake and error of consent
o Agreement:
 Land containing 25 hectares more or less
 Crop estimated and warranted at 2,000 piculs
o Reality:
 Land contained only a little more than 18 hectares
 Crop produce of 800 piculs
RULING
 There is a mutual mistake as to the quantity of the land sold and the amount of the standing
crop.
o The use of the word “more or less” can only be considered as covering inconsiderable or
small differences and do not determine the character of the sale. This may relieve from
exactness but not from gross deficiency.
 The mistake is disclosed not by the terms of the contract but by the attendant circumstances
which highlights the intention of the parties.
 Without such mistake, the agreement would have not been made and since this is true, the
agreement is inoperative.
 The Court found that the case is more nearly akin to a bilateral mistake for which relief should
be granted. As a result, the parties are referred back in the exact positions before they became
involved in the negotiations and before the accomplishment of the agreement.