Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    (CD) Pichel v. Alonzo - G.R. No. L-36902 - January 30, 1982 - AZapanta

    Uploaded by

    The Concerned Lawstudent
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of coconut fruits from a parcel of land. Prudencio Alonzo was originally awarded the land by the government but his rights were cancelled and later reinstated. Prudencio and his wife then sold all rights to the coconut fruits on the land to Luis Pichel. However, Prudencio later refused to allow Pichel to harvest the fruits, claiming he had changed his mind. The court ruled that a contracting party cannot invalidate a contract by simply claiming they changed their mind, and that Prudencio could not impugn the validity of the sale agreement he entered into with Pichel. The terms of the sale agreement were clear and unambiguous.

    Copyright:

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

    (CD) Pichel v. Alonzo - G.R. No. L-36902 - January 30, 1982 - AZapanta

    Uploaded by

    The Concerned Lawstudent
    39 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of coconut fruits from a parcel of land. Prudencio Alonzo was originally awarded the land by the government but his rights were cancelled and later reinstated. Prudencio and his wife then sold all rights to the coconut fruits on the land to Luis Pichel. However, Prudencio later refused to allow Pichel to harvest the fruits, claiming he had changed his mind. The court ruled that a contracting party cannot invalidate a contract by simply claiming they changed their mind, and that Prudencio could not impugn the validity of the sale agreement he entered into with Pichel. The terms of the sale agreement were clear and unambiguous.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    [CD] Pichel v. Alonzo - G.R. No. L-36902 - January 30, 1982 - AZapanta

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the sale of coconut fruits from a parcel of land. Prudencio Alonzo was originally awarded the land by the government but his rights were cancelled and later reinstated. Prudencio and his wife then sold all rights to the coconut fruits on the land to Luis Pichel. However, Prudencio later refused to allow Pichel to harvest the fruits, claiming he had changed his mind. The court ruled that a contracting party cannot invalidate a contract by simply claiming they changed their mind, and that Prudencio could not impugn the validity of the sale agreement he entered into with Pichel. The terms of the sale agreement were clear and unambiguous.

    Copyright:

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

    (CD) Pichel v. Alonzo - G.R. No. L-36902 - January 30, 1982 - AZapanta

    Uploaded by

    The Concerned Lawstudent
    This case involves a dispute over the sale of coconut fruits from a parcel of land. Prudencio Alonzo was originally awarded the land by the government but his rights were cancelled and later reinstated. Prudencio and his wife then sold all rights to the coconut fruits on the land to Luis Pichel. However, Prudencio later refused to allow Pichel to harvest the fruits, claiming he had changed his mind. The court ruled that a contracting party cannot invalidate a contract by simply claiming they changed their mind, and that Prudencio could not impugn the validity of the sale agreement he entered into with Pichel. The terms of the sale agreement were clear and unambiguous.

    Copyright:

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

    LUIS PICHEL, PETITIONER, VS. PRUDENCIO ALONZO, RESPONDENT.

    G.R. No. L-36902, January 30, 1982

    FACTS

    Prudencio Alonzo was awarded by the Government a parcel of land. The award was cancelled by
    the Board of Liquidators on the ground that, previous thereto, plaintiff was proved to have
    alienated the land to another, in violation of law. In 1972, his rights to the land were reinstated.

    Prudencio and his wife sold to defendant all the fruits of the coconut trees which may be
    harvested in the land in question. Even as of the date of sale, however, the land was still under
    lease to one, Ramon Sua, and it was the agreement that part of the consideration of the sale was
    to be paid by defendant directly to Ramon Sua so as to release the land from the clutches of the
    latter. Pending said payment Prudencio refused to allow Pichel to make any harvest, after
    changing his mind.

    Pichel for the first time since the execution of the deed of sale in his favor, caused the harvest of
    the fruit of the coconut trees in the land, by filing a case.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not Prudencio can cancel the contract? (NO)

    RULING

    A contracting party cannot be allowed to impugn the contract he has entered into by saying he
    can change his mind.—Respondent through counsel, in his Answer to the Petition contends that
    even granting arguendo that he executed a deed of sale of the coconut fruits, he has the “privilege
    to change his mind and claim it as (an) implied lease,” and he has the “legitimate right” to file an
    action for annulment “which no law can stop.” He claims it is his “sole construction of the
    meaning of the transaction that should prevail and not petitioner, (sic).” Respondent’s counsel
    either misapplies the law or is trying too hard and going too far to defend his client’s hopeless
    cause. Suffice it to say that respondent-grantee, after having received the consideration for the
    sale of his coconut fruits, cannot be allowed to impugn the validity of the contracts he entered
    into, to the prejudice of petitioner who contracted in good faith and for a consideration.

    xxxx

    The first five assigned errors are interrelated, hence, We shall consider them together. To begin
    with, We agree with petitioner that construction or interpretation of the document in question is
    not called for. A perusal of the deed fails to disclose any ambiguity or obscurity in its provisions,
    nor is there doubt as to the real intention of the contracting parties. The terms of the agreement
    are clear and unequivocal, hence the literal and plain meaning thereof should be observed.

    AZapanta_Digest

    You might also like