Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-98-1146)
Facts:
Spouses Apolinar Talento and Marciana Limuco filed an action to annul a deed of sale dated March 30, 1943 of a homestead in Abucay, Bataan in favor of Benita Escartin and Eigero Makiki. They alleged that Makiki, a Japanese civilian, along with his wife and Antonio Navoa, obtained their consent through intimidation causing them to sign out of fear of serious consequences; the price was P3,000 paid partly in Japanese notes and partly in Philippine National Bank notes.The trial court dismissed the action, finding that intimidation was not proven and that, even assuming intimidation, plaintiffs’ acts amounted to confirmation. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto. Petitioners sought review, initially arguing that intimidation tainted the sale, and later raising additional theories involving wartime “enemy” contracting and alleged constitutional violations.
Issues:
- Whether the deed of sale was executed through intimidation that should render it void.
- Whether the sale, allegedly
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-98-1146)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of the petition
- Petitioners Apolinar Talento and Marciana Limuco Talento filed a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision.
- Respondents were Eigero Makiki, Benita Escartin, and the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals held that the sale which gave rise to the action was valid and binding between the parties.
- The Court of Appeals also held that, even if the sale were invalid, the action could not be maintained under the doctrine of pari delicto.
- Underlying transaction and alleged ground for invalidity
- Petitioners instituted an action to annul a deed of sale.
- The deed of sale was executed on March 30, 1943.
- The sale involved a homestead situated in Abucay, Bataan.
- The vendors were spouses Apolinar Talento and Marciana Limuco.
- The vendees were Benita Escartin and Eigero Makiki, with Makiki being a Japanese civilian.
- Petitioners’ theory in the complaint
- Petitioners alleged that Eigero Makiki, accompanied by his wife and Antonio Navoa, went to see petitioners.
- Petitioners alleged that Makiki, through intimidation, made them execute the deed of sale.
- Petitioners claimed that they executed the deed out of fear of possible consequences if they refused his bidding.
- Petitioners alleged that the price was P3,000.
- Petitioners alleged that the price was paid partly in Japanese notes and partly in Philippine National Bank notes.
- Parties’ participation and procedural posture in the trial court
- Eigero Makiki did not appear in the proceedings; his whereabouts were unknown.
- The trial court declared Eigero Makiki in default.
- Benita Escartin’s defenses
- Benita Escartin appeared and answered the complaint.
- She denied the allegations and asserted that the facts alleged by petitioners were not true.
- She asserted that the action was presented in bad faith.
- She claimed the purpose was merely to harass her.
- She asked that petitioners be ordered to pay damages in the amount of P2,500.
- Findings and disposition of the trial court
- After trial, the court found that the sale was not executed through intimidation, as claimed in the complaint.
- The court further held that even if the sale had been executed through intimidation, it was purged of its defects by certain acts performed by petitioners, which the court deemed to amount to confirmation.
- The trial court dismissed the action with costs against petitioners.
- Ruling on appeal and petitioners’ assigned errors
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in toto.
- Petitioners filed a petition for review and assigned errors.
- Petitioners’ first assignment of error claimed that the deed of sale (Exhibit 1) should have been declared executed due to intimidation by Makiki, considering circumstances and unequal conditions allegedly overlooked.
- Respondents argued that the issue raised was factual and not reviewable by the appellate court under precedents.
- The Supreme Court agreed that the first assignment raised matters largely dependent on witness credibility and surrounding circumstances, which the Court of Appeals had already considered carefully.
- The remaining assignments referred to questions of law, including:
- Whether the deed should be declared null and void because petitioners were Filipinos and respondents were Japanese, and the contract was allegedly executed between enemies in time of war.
- Whether the sale, even if valid, was subject to adjustment and settlement after the termination of war under a Constitution adopted by the Japanese-sponsored Philippine Republic during occupation, with petitioners allegedly offering such settlement but the Court of Appeals allegedly not entertaining it.
- Whether the sale was null and void for violating the letter and spirit of the present Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Krivenko case...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Reviewability and factual underpinning of the first assignment of error
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the deed of sale was executed due to intimidation by Makiki, considering circumstances of execution and alleged unequal conditions.
- Whether the intimidation issue presented questions of fact that could not be acted upon in appellate review.
- Procedural issue on raising new questions for the first time on appeal
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly refused to consider new questions raised for the first time on appeal, given the rule cited (section 19, Rule 48, Rules of Court).
- Whether constitutional issues could be raised on appeal when they were not raised in the court below.
- Merits of petitioners’ legal theories on nullity and effect of wartime and constitutional frameworks
- Whether the sale should be declared null and void because it was entered into between Filipinos and Japanese in time of war, as an alleged contract between enemies.
- Whether the sale, even if valid, was subject to post-war adjustment and settlement under a constitution adopted during the occupation, and whether petitioners’ offer of settlement should have been entertained.
- Whether the sale was null and void for violating the letter and spirit of the present Constitution, as interpreted in the Krivenko case.
- Application of the doctrine...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)