This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2014-03-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Consequently, petitioners' contention of absence of consent had no firm moorings. It remained unproved. To begin with, they neither alleged nor established that they had been forced or coerced to enter into the mortgage. Also, they had freely and voluntarily applied for the loan, executed the mortgage contract and turned over the TCTs of their properties. And, lastly, contrary to their modified defense of absence of consent, Vicky Ang's testimony tended at best to prove the vitiation of their consent through insidious words, machinations or misrepresentations amounting to fraud, which showed that the contract was voidable. Where the consent was given through fraud, the contract was voidable, not void ab initio.[29] This is because a voidable or annullable contract is existent, valid and binding, although it can be annulled due to want of capacity or because of the vitiated consent of one of the parties.[30] | |||||