Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Menchavez vs. Teves

    Uploaded by

    AnnMaureenNavarro
    This case involves a contract to lease a fishpond that was declared void because the owners could not lease the fishpond from the state and sublease it to another party. While parties to an illegal contract are typically considered equally at fault, the court found an exception under Article 1412 of the Civil Code since the illegality did not constitute a criminal offense. As a result, only the party not at fault (the lessee) could recover what they had given under the contract, while the owners, who were at fault, could not recover anything and did not need to fulfill any obligations under the void contract. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition.

    Copyright:

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

    Menchavez vs. Teves

    Uploaded by

    AnnMaureenNavarro
    58 views1 page
    This case involves a contract to lease a fishpond that was declared void because the owners could not lease the fishpond from the state and sublease it to another party. While parties to an illegal contract are typically considered equally at fault, the court found an exception under Article 1412 of the Civil Code since the illegality did not constitute a criminal offense. As a result, only the party not at fault (the lessee) could recover what they had given under the contract, while the owners, who were at fault, could not recover anything and did not need to fulfill any obligations under the void contract. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition.

    Original Description:

    mvt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a contract to lease a fishpond that was declared void because the owners could not lease the fishpond from the state and sublease it to another party. While parties to an illegal contract are typically considered equally at fault, the court found an exception under Article 1412 of the Civil Code since the illegality did not constitute a criminal offense. As a result, only the party not at fault (the lessee) could recover what they had given under the contract, while the owners, who were at fault, could not recover anything and did not need to fulfill any obligations under the void contract. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    58 views1 page

    Menchavez vs. Teves

    Uploaded by

    AnnMaureenNavarro
    This case involves a contract to lease a fishpond that was declared void because the owners could not lease the fishpond from the state and sublease it to another party. While parties to an illegal contract are typically considered equally at fault, the court found an exception under Article 1412 of the Civil Code since the illegality did not constitute a criminal offense. As a result, only the party not at fault (the lessee) could recover what they had given under the contract, while the owners, who were at fault, could not recover anything and did not need to fulfill any obligations under the void contract. The Supreme Court ultimately granted the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Menchavez vs.

    Teves
    Facts:
    On February 28, 1986 a Contract of Lease of a Fishpond was executed between the
    plaintiffs, as lessor and the respondent as lessee. On June 2, 1988 the fishpond
    dikes constructed by respondent was demolished as ordered by Cebu RTC. As a
    result, he filed a Complaint for damages alleging that petitioners violated their
    contract of lease specially the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of property for the
    entire duration of the contract. The RTC declared the Contract as void and declared
    both parties in pari delicto. The CA however reversed the decision. Thus the present
    appeal.
    Issue:
    Are the parties of the Contract of Lease in Pari delicto?
    Ruling:
    Under the 1987 Constitution specifically declares that all lands of the public domain,
    waters, fisheries and other natural resources belong to the State.18Included here
    are fishponds, which may not be alienated but only leased, thus making the
    Contract of Lease void. We apply the maxim NEMO DAT QUOD NON HABET meaning ONE CANNOT GIVE WHAT HE DOES NOT HAVE. Petitioners are applicants of
    the fishponds. Even if the State grants them the lease, the law also prohibits
    sublease of the fishponds.
    The parties are in pari delicto or in equal fault and the law deny them aid for any
    claims against the other and courts leave them as they are. However Article 1412 of
    the Civil Code provides the exception.
    "Art. 1412. If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not
    constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:
    "(1) When the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover
    what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the
    others undertaking;
    "(2) When only one of the contracting parties is at fault, he cannot recover what he
    has given by reason of the contract, or ask for the fulfillment of what has been
    promised him. The other, who is not at fault, may demand the return of what he has
    given without any obligation to comply with his promise."
    The petition is GRANTED.

    You might also like