Question

Marion, a business owner, recently sold a piece of land to Sheila. Marion believed that she owned the land outright and was unaware of any encumbrances or restrictions on the property. However, after the sale, it was discovered that the land was subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting certain types of development. Sheila, upon learning about the restriction, demands compensation from Marion for the decrease in the property's value. Marion, however, argues that she was completely unaware of the existence of the restrictive covenant and should not be held liable.

Based on the given scenario, and citing the Civil Code (Article 3) on Ignorance of the Law and Ignorance of Fact, discuss the following:

1. What is the effect of Marion's ignorance of the restrictive covenant on her liability?
2. Can Sheila demand compensation from Marion despite Marion's claim of ignorance?
3. Are there any circumstances where Marion's claim of ignorance may be valid?
4. What legal principle guides the resolution of this issue?