The Supreme Court ruled that a real estate developer’s misleading advertisements about a condominium’s location do not automatically void a sales contract if the buyer later acknowledges the correct location in the contract and continues with the purchase. This decision underscores that while deceptive practices are condemned, they don’t necessarily invalidate agreements if the buyer’s consent wasn’t solely based on the false information. The ruling emphasizes the importance of clear and convincing evidence to prove that the misrepresentation was the primary reason for entering into the contract. Essentially, the Court balances consumer protection with the sanctity of contracts, requiring buyers to demonstrate that the fraudulent claim was the critical factor in their decision to purchase.

Location, Location, Misrepresentation: Can a False Ad Void a Condo Contract?

ECE Realty and Development Inc. faced a lawsuit from Rachel Mandap, who sought to annul her contract to purchase a condominium unit. Mandap claimed that ECE Realty’s advertisements falsely stated the project was in Makati City, when it was actually in Pasay City. Despite this discrepancy, Mandap signed a Contract to Sell that correctly indicated the Pasay City location. The central legal question was whether ECE Realty’s misrepresentation constituted fraud sufficient to nullify the contract, despite Mandap’s subsequent acknowledgement of the correct location.

The Civil Code defines fraud, specifically in Article 1338, as occurring “when through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to.” Furthermore, Article 1390 states that a contract is voidable if consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud. However, for fraud to void a contract, Article 1344 specifies that it must be serious and not employed by both parties.

Jurisprudence dictates that fraud sufficient to annul a contract must meet two crucial conditions. First, it must be dolo causante, meaning the fraud directly caused the party to consent to the agreement. This deceit must be serious enough to mislead a reasonably prudent person. Second, the fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard than a mere preponderance of evidence. These dual requirements ensure that contracts are not lightly set aside based on unsubstantiated claims of deception.

In this case, the Supreme Court acknowledged that ECE Realty engaged in false representation by advertising the condominium project as being in Makati City when it was actually in Pasay City. The Court condemned this act of misrepresentation and warned against its repetition. However, the Court sided with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and the Office of the President, finding that this misrepresentation did not amount to the dolo causante necessary to annul the Contract to Sell. It must be proven that the fraudulent claim was the principal inducement that led her into buying the unit in the said condominium project.

The Court emphasized that Mandap proceeded to sign the Contract to Sell despite knowing the condominium’s actual location. This act indicated that the location was not the sole determining factor in her decision to purchase the property. Had the location been a critical issue, she should have immediately objected and refused to sign the contract. Instead, she continued making payments, further weakening her claim of fraud based on location.

The Court also upheld the validity of the notarized Contract to Sell, which enjoys a presumption of regularity. As such, it is considered conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents. Respondent’s allegation that she signed the said Contract to Sell with several blank spaces, and which allegedly did not indicate the location of the condominium, was not supported by proof. To overcome this presumption requires clear and convincing evidence, which Mandap failed to provide.

Moreover, the Court highlighted the principle of implied ratification, detailed in Article 1393 of the Civil Code. This article states that tacit ratification occurs when a person, aware of the reason that makes a contract voidable, takes actions implying an intention to waive their right to challenge it.

Art. 1393. Ratification may be effected expressly or tacitly. It is understood that there is a tacit ratification if, with knowledge of the reason which renders the contract voidable and such reason having ceased, the person who has a right to invoke it should execute an act which necessarily implies an intention to waive his right.

Implied ratification can manifest through silence, acquiescence, acts showing approval, or acceptance of benefits from the contract. By signing the contract and continuing payments after knowing the actual location, Mandap effectively ratified the agreement, precluding her from later claiming fraud based on the initial misrepresentation.

The Court ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinstating the HLURB’s order for the parties to resume fulfilling the sales contract. This ruling reinforces the principle that contracts, especially notarized ones, are presumed valid unless compelling evidence proves otherwise. Furthermore, it underscores that a party cannot claim fraud if their actions indicate acceptance of the contract’s terms despite awareness of the alleged misrepresentation.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the real estate developer’s misrepresentation of the condominium’s location in its advertisements constituted fraud that would void the Contract to Sell, even though the correct location was stated in the contract itself.
What is “dolo causante”?	“Dolo causante” refers to the causal fraud that induces a party to enter into a contract. It is a critical element for proving that fraud vitiated consent, making the contract voidable.
What is the significance of a notarized contract?	A notarized contract carries a presumption of regularity and is considered conclusive as to the truthfulness of its contents. Overcoming this presumption requires clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
What is implied ratification?	Implied ratification occurs when a party, knowing the reason that makes a contract voidable, takes actions that imply an intention to waive their right to challenge it. This can include continuing to perform the contract or accepting benefits from it.
What evidence is needed to prove fraud in a contract?	To prove fraud, there must be clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that the misrepresentation was the primary reason the party entered into the contract. This is a higher standard of proof than a mere preponderance of evidence.
Why did the Supreme Court rule in favor of ECE Realty?	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ECE Realty because Mandap signed the Contract to Sell knowing the correct location of the condominium and continued making payments. This implied ratification of the contract despite the earlier misrepresentation.
What is the practical implication of this ruling for consumers?	This ruling means consumers must show that the misrepresentation was the essential and moving factor in their decision to buy the unit. It’s not enough that there was a misrepresentation; they must prove it was the main reason they entered the contract.
Does this ruling mean real estate developers can freely make false claims in advertisements?	No, the Court condemned ECE Realty’s misrepresentation and warned against its repetition. This ruling emphasizes the importance of accurate advertising but also upholds the sanctity of contracts when misrepresentations are not the sole reason for entering into them.

This case clarifies the conditions under which misrepresentation can invalidate a contract, emphasizing the need for clear evidence and demonstrating the importance of parties’ actions after discovering the truth. It serves as a reminder of the need for transparency in advertising and the responsibilities of parties entering into contractual agreements.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ECE Realty and Development Inc. vs. Rachel G. Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, September 1, 2014