This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-03-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| According to Article 1338 of the Civil Code, there is fraud when one of the contracting parties, through insidious words or machinations, induces the other to enter into the contract that, without the inducement, he would not have agreed to. Yet, fraud, to vitiate consent, must be the causal (dolo causante), not merely the incidental (dolo incidente), inducement to the making of the contract.[14] In Samson v. Court of Appeals,[15] causal fraud is defined as "a deception employed by one party prior to or simultaneous to the contract in order to secure the consent of the other."[16] | |||||
|
2012-01-16 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Under Article 1338 of the Civil Code, there is fraud 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. In order that fraud may vitiate consent, it must be the causal (dolo causante), not merely the incidental (dolo incidente), inducement to the making of the contract.[30] In Samson v. Court of Appeals,[31] causal fraud was defined as "a deception employed by one party prior to or simultaneous to the contract in order to secure the consent of the other."[32] | |||||