Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 258 views

    Chua vs. Carr

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    Ong Chua bought land from Henry Teck and Magdalena Lim with a right to repurchase within 4 years. Ong later sold the land to Edward Carr, but the deed removed the right to repurchase without Ong's knowledge to allow Carr to get a loan. When Teck and Lim tried to repurchase, Carr refused, claiming absolute title. Ong filed to reform the deed, which the lower court granted. The Supreme Court also ruled the deed should be reformed, as Carr's conduct was fraudulent and established beyond doubt. Ong had no clear understanding of the deed written in English and relied on Moore's statements.

    Copyright:

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

    Chua vs. Carr

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    258 views1 page
    Ong Chua bought land from Henry Teck and Magdalena Lim with a right to repurchase within 4 years. Ong later sold the land to Edward Carr, but the deed removed the right to repurchase without Ong's knowledge to allow Carr to get a loan. When Teck and Lim tried to repurchase, Carr refused, claiming absolute title. Ong filed to reform the deed, which the lower court granted. The Supreme Court also ruled the deed should be reformed, as Carr's conduct was fraudulent and established beyond doubt. Ong had no clear understanding of the deed written in English and relied on Moore's statements.

    Original Description:

    case digest on obligations and contracts

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ong Chua bought land from Henry Teck and Magdalena Lim with a right to repurchase within 4 years. Ong later sold the land to Edward Carr, but the deed removed the right to repurchase without Ong's knowledge to allow Carr to get a loan. When Teck and Lim tried to repurchase, Carr refused, claiming absolute title. Ong filed to reform the deed, which the lower court granted. The Supreme Court also ruled the deed should be reformed, as Carr's conduct was fraudulent and established beyond doubt. Ong had no clear understanding of the deed written in English and relied on Moore's statements.

    Copyright:

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

    Chua vs. Carr

    Uploaded by

    Remelyn Selda
    Ong Chua bought land from Henry Teck and Magdalena Lim with a right to repurchase within 4 years. Ong later sold the land to Edward Carr, but the deed removed the right to repurchase without Ong's knowledge to allow Carr to get a loan. When Teck and Lim tried to repurchase, Carr refused, claiming absolute title. Ong filed to reform the deed, which the lower court granted. The Supreme Court also ruled the deed should be reformed, as Carr's conduct was fraudulent and established beyond doubt. Ong had no clear understanding of the deed written in English and relied on Moore's statements.

    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

    ONG CHUA vs.EDWARD CARR, ET AL.

    ,
    G.R. No. L-29512
    OSTRAND, J.:

    FACTS:

    Henry Teck and Magdalena Lim owns some land which they
    sold to Ong Chua, with the right to repurchase within 4 years. The
    land was later sold by Ong to Edward Carr. In the deed of sale
    however, the right to repurchase was removed, without the
    knowledge of Ong, in order for Carr to obtain a loan using the land.

    When the spouses Teck and Lim offered to repurchase the


    property, Carr refused, claiming that he has absolute title to the
    property. Ong then filed a case for the reformation of the deed which
    was granted by the lower court. Hence, this appeal.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the reformation of the deed should be granted?

    DECISION:

    Yes. Carr’s conduct was tainted with fraud, which was


    established beyond a doubt and not by mere preponderance of
    evidence. Hence, since there was mistake by one party, and fraud
    in the other, the party who was mistaken has the right to demand the
    reformation of the contract.

    Also, it is conclusive in the evidence that the plaintiff had no


    clear conception of the contents of the deed. That he was anxious
    to protect the rights of redemption held by the parties who sold the
    land to him, is very obvious; indeed, if he had failed to do so, he
    would have laid himself open to an action for damages. But the deed
    was written in the English language, with which the plaintiff was
    unfamiliar, and he had to rely on the statements of Moore as to the
    contents and effect of the deed and was told that the document was
    sufficient. He had confidence in Moore, with whom he had previous
    business relations, and it was but natural for him to believe Moore’s
    statement.

    You might also like