Case Digest (G.R. No. 40791)
Facts:
Pedro Escutin, Dominga Escutin, assisted by her husband Jose Bauson, Consuelo Escutin, assisted by her husband Gregorio Castaneda, and Carolina Escutin, Plaintiffs and Appellees, vs. Socorro Escutin, Defendant and Appellant, G. R. No. 40791, November 20, 1934, the Supreme Court, Vickers, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiffs — four children of Sabas Escutin by his wife Paula Arboly — sued in the Court of First Instance of Capiz to annul a public deed of sale (Exhibit A) executed on February 26, 1932 and acknowledged before Notary Rafael Lozada on the same date, by which Sabas purportedly sold Lot No. 1801 in Dao (about 19 ha) to Socorro Escutin for P1,925. The trial court found the deed simulated and fraudulent and declared it null and void, holding the land to be plaintiffs' property.
The evidence showed that Sabas, though married to Paula, had for many years lived with his mistress Juana Yap in Capiz; Socorro was Juana's daughter and lived in the same household. Sabas died on March 10, 1932. The parcel in question had a reasonable market value of about P3,750. The defendant claimed payment of the P1,925 in cash at the time of execution; Notary Lozada testified Socorro produced a bundle of banknotes from a wardrobe and handed them to Sabas, who counted them. The deed was presented to the Register of Deeds on April 27, 1932, but no transfer certificate of title was issued and Socorro never took possession.
Plaintiffs produced testimony adverse to the defendant's claim of payment: (a) Juana purportedly told one Daniel Amancio that a sale was being staged so that Socorro would receive the land upon Sabas' death and that a third person was to act as a "figurehead" purchaser; (b) Sofronia Escolin testified that Juana and Socorro urged the ailing Sabas to convey the Lacaron land to Socorro, returned with a document which Sabas then signed without any payment being made, and asked that the matter not be mentioned. Neither Socorro nor Juana testified at trial. The trial court discredited the notary's testimony about payment and found the consideration fictitious and the transaction fraudulent under Article 1275 of the Civil Code, and so annulled the sale.
On appeal the appellant challenged (1) the trial court's denial of her motion to strike allegations in the complaint referring to her parentage and the admission of evidence on paternity; (2) the court's finding of lack of consideration; and (3) an ancillary point that the notary who acknowledged the deed w...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion to strike allegations about her paternity and in admitting evidence tending to prove her paternity?
- Was the deed of sale valid — in particular, was the alleged consideration actually paid so as to render the contract effective?
- If the deed were otherwise valid, would any alleged defect in the notary's eligibi...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)