Theis vs CA

Sps. Theis vs. CA et. al.
G.R. No. 126013. 12 Feb 1997
Petition to review the decision of the CA
Hermosisima, Jr., J.:

Facts: Private respondent Calsons Development Corporation is the owner of three (3) adjacent parcels of land (parcel nos.1, 2 and 3). All three parcels of land are situated in Tagaytay City. Adjacent to parcel no.3 is a vacant lot denominated as parcel no. 4. In 1985, Private respondent constructed a two-srorey house on parcel no. 3 and the two other lots remained idle.
In a survey conducted in 1985, parcel no. 3 was erroneously indicated to be covered by the TCT of parcel no. 1, while the parcel no. 1 and parcel no. 2 were mistakenly surveyed to be located on parcel no. 4 instead. Unaware of the mistake private respondent sold said parcel no. 4 to petitioners.
In 1990, petitioners discovered that parcel no. 4 was owned by another person. They also discovered that the lots actually sold to them were parcel nos. 2 and 3. To remedy the mistake, private respondent offered parcel nos. 1 and 2 as these two were precisely the two vacant lots which private respondent owned and intended to sell. Petitioners rejected the good faith offer. Private respondent made another offer, this time the return of an amount double the price paid by petitioners. Petitioners still refused. Private respondent was then compelled to file an action for annulment of deed of sale and reconveyance of the properties subject thereof in the RTC which ruled on their favor and on appeal, the CA affirmed the same.

Issue: WON petitioners should be allowed to take parcel no. 3.

Ruling: Petition dismissed. CA decision affirmed.
The SC held that private respondent obviously committed an honest mistake in selling parcel no. 4. The good faith of the private respondent is evident in the fact that when the mistake was discovered, it immediately offered two other vacant lots to the petitioners or to reimburse them with twice the amount paid. That petitioners refused either option left the private respondent with no other choice but to file an action for the annulment of the deed of sale on the ground of mistake.
To allow the petitioners to take parcel no. 3 would be to countenance unjust enrichment. Considering that petitioners intended at the outset to purchase a vacant lot, their refusal to accept the offer of the private respondent to give them two (2) other vacant lots in exchange, as well as their insistence on parcel no. 3, which is a house and lot, is manifestly unreasonable.

*Dan