A void contract is equivalent to nothing; it produces no civil effect.^[23] It does not create, modify or extinguish a juridical relation.^[24] Parties to a void agreement cannot expect the aid of the law; the courts leave them as they are, because they are deemed in pari delicto or “in equal fault.”^[25] To this rule, however, there are exceptions that permit the return of that which may have been given under a void contract.^[26] One of the exceptions is found in Article 1412 of the Civil Code, which states:

“Art. 1412. If the act in which the unlawful or forbidden cause consists does not constitute a criminal offense, the following rules shall be observed:

“(1) When the fault is on the part of both contracting parties, neither may recover what he has given by virtue of the contract, or demand the performance of the other’s undertaking;

“(2) When only one of the contracting parties is at fault, he cannot recover what he has given by reason of the contract, or ask for the fulfillment of what has been promised him. The other, who is not at fault, may demand the return of what he has given without any obligation to comply with his promise.”

On this premise, respondent contends that he can recover from petitioners, because he is an innocent party to the Contract of Lease.^[27] Petitioners allegedly induced him to enter into it through serious misrepresentation.[28

[ G.R. NO. 153201, January 26, 2005 ]

JOSE MENCHAVEZ, JUAN MENCHAVEZ JR., SIMEON MENCHAVEZ, RODOLFO MENCHAVEZ, CESAR MENCHAVEZ, REYNALDO, MENCHAVEZ, ALMA MENCHAVEZ, ELMA MENCHAVEZ, CHARITO M. MAGA, FE M. POTOT, THELMA M. REROMA, MYRNA M. YBAÑEZ, AND SARAH M. VILLABER, PETITIONERS, VS. FLORENTINO TEVES JR., RESPONDENT.