Title
Alvarez vs. Wee
Case
G.R. No. 22655
Decision Date
Dec 15, 1924
Plaintiff contested fraudulent documents allegedly executed by deceased Ambrosio Torres; trial court voided them, affirmed by Supreme Court due to lack of valid consideration and fraud.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 22655)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Plaintiff and Appellee: Juan S. Alvarez, as Special Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Ambrosio Torres Wee Chi, deceased.
    • Defendant and Appellant: Dalmacio Guevara Wee.
  2. Nature of the Case:

    • The plaintiff filed an action alleging that certain documents were illegally and fraudulently executed and obtained. The plaintiff sought the cancellation of these documents, claiming they were null and void.
    • The defendant countered that the documents were legally and freely executed, without force, violence, fraud, or malice.
  3. Trial Court Decision:

    • The Court of First Instance of Zamboanga declared the documents fraudulent and void, ruling in favor of the plaintiff and ordering the defendant to pay costs.
  4. Documents in Question:

    • Exhibit 2 (4): A deed of sale for Lot 7.
    • Exhibit 1 (3): Another document whose validity was contested.
  5. Key Allegations:

    • The plaintiff claimed that the deceased, Ambrosio Torres, was not indebted to the defendant for P8,000, as alleged in the documents.
    • The defendant argued that the P8,000 was a valid consideration for the sale, representing a debt owed by Ambrosio Torres to the Bank of the Philippine Islands, for which the defendant was liable.
  6. Evidence Presented:

    • The evidence did not sufficiently establish that Ambrosio Torres owed the defendant P8,000.
    • It was revealed that Ambrosio Torres was only a guarantor for the defendant’s debt to the bank, not a debtor himself.
  7. Procedural Issue:

    • The trial court reopened the case five months after the evidence was closed, which the defendant contested as an error.

Issue:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in reopening the case five months after the evidence was closed.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in declaring Exhibit 2 (4) and Exhibit 1 (3) fraudulent.
  3. Whether the conveyances evidenced by the documents were fraudulent.
  4. Whether the trial court erred in rendering judgment against the defendant for costs.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.