Azarraga v.

Gay The lower court, having found no fraud when the parties agreed to the
lump sum for the two parcels of land described in the deed Exhibit A, ruled in
52 Phil. 599 (1928) favor of Azarraga.

Art. 1340 - Usual exaggerations in trade: opportunity to know the facts

FACTS:
ISSUE:
In January 1921, the plaintiff Leodegario Azarraga sold two parcels of
W/N there was fraud in the circumstances leading to the agreement in the
lands to defendant Maria Gay for the lump sum of P47,000, payable in
contract.
installments.

The conditions of the payment were: P5,000 at the time of signing the
contract. Exhibit A; P20,000 upon delivery by the vendor to the purchaser of the HELD:
Torrens title to the first parcel described in the deed of sale, P10,000 upon
delivery by the vendor to the purchaser of Torrens title to the second parcel; and No. There is no evidence of record that the plaintiff made representation
lastly the sum of P12,000 one year after the delivery of the Torrens title to the to the defendant as to the area of said second parcel, and even if he did make
second parcel. such false representations as are now imputed to him by the defendant, the latter
accepted such representations at her own risk and she is the only one responsible
The first two conditions were complied, however, Gay failed to pay the for the consequnces of her inexcusable credulousness.
P10,000 as agreed, neither did she pay the remaining P12,000 one year after
having received the Torrens title to the second parcel. The defendant had ample opportunity to appraise herself of the condition
of the land which she purchased, and the plaintiff did nothing to prevent her from
It prompted Azarraga to institute an action, claiming the sum of P22,000, making such investigation as she deemed fit, and as was said in Songco vs.
with legal interest from the month of April 1921 on the sum of P10,000, and from Sellner, “when the purchaser proceeds to make investigations by himself, and the
April 1922 on the sum of P12,000, until full payment of the amounts claimed. vendor does nothing to prevent such investigation from being as complete as the
former might wish, the purchaser cannot later allege that the vendor made false
Defendant admits that she purchased the two parcels of land referred to
representations to him.”
by plaintiff, but alleges in defense: (a) That the plaintiff knowing that the second
parcels of land he sold had an area of 60 hectares, by misrepresentation lead the
defendant to believe that said second parcel contained 98 hectares, and thus
made it appear in the deed of sale and induced the vendee to bind herself to pay
the price of P47,000 for the two parcels of land, which he represented contained
an area of no less than 200 hectares, to which price the defendant would not
have bound herself had she known that the real area of the second parcel was 60
hectares, and, consequently, she is entitled to a reduction in the price of the two
parcels in proportion to the area lacking which ought to be reduced to P38,000.