Back

[2/2] Doromal, Sr., and Salas, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al

[2/2] Spouses RAMON DOROMAL, SR., and ROSARIO SALAS, and Spouses RAMON DOROMAL, JR., and GAUDELIA VEGA, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FILOMENA JAVELLANA, respondents.

G.R. No. L-36083 | 1975-09-05

Part II

When the Doromals falsely understated the contractual price of their purchase from respondent's co-owners, they did so at their own risk and with full knowledge of respondent's right to redeem the property for the price stated in the contract.

By virtue of the rule of in pari delicto, they cannot even seek recourse against the co-owners to refund to them the difference between the redemption price (of P30,000.00) and the much larger amount (of P115,250.00) that they actually paid the co-owners.

If, say, there were no question of redemption but that they had a valid cause for rescission of their purchase and brought suit...