G.R. No. 213001 - Cardinez vs. Spouses Cardinez

Case Summary (G.R. No. 213001)

Factual Background

The parcel at issue, measuring 1,950 square meters and located in Brgy. Sta. Cruz, Bacnotan, La Union, was owned by the late Simeona Cardinez and inherited by her sons Prudencio, Florentino, and Valentin, who divided the land equally and caused issuance of TCT No. T-26701 in their names on April 23, 1986; Prudencio’s middle portion was registered for taxation under Tax Declaration No. 18237. In 1994 Valentin requested that Prudencio donate a ten-square-meter portion allegedly encroached by Valentin’s balcony; Valentin presented an English-language document which he represented to Prudencio and his wife Cresencia as a partition and transfer instrument, and the spouses signed without reading because they trusted Valentin and did not understand the document’s English contents; the spouses did not receive a copy. Petitioners later produced a notarized Deed of Donation dated April 26, 1994 purporting that Prudencio, Florentino, Valentin and their spouses donated their respective shares to petitioners, and TCT No. T-40459 and corresponding tax declarations were subsequently issued in petitioners’ names.

Procedural History in the Trial Court

After an unsuccessful barangay conciliation, respondents filed the complaint for annulment, recovery of possession and damages on November 19, 2008, alleging that Valentin induced them by misrepresentation to sign a Deed of Donation which they believed was a partition instrument; respondents presented TCT No. T-26701, Tax Declaration No. 18237, the Deed of Donation, an affidavit of Valentin dated October 7, 1982, and a survey plan, and testimony that Prudencio only finished Grade 3 and did not understand the document, that Valentin did not read it to them, and that the notary did not explain its contents. Petitioners denied fraud, claimed prior purchase by Prudencio in 1972, asserted that respondents understood the document and voluntarily donated the land, presented the notarized Deed of Donation and TCT No. T-40459, and produced the notary public Mario Rodriguez who testified that all parties personally appeared. The RTC denied petitioners’ demurrer to evidence and, after trial, found that respondents proved the Deed of Donation was executed through fraudulent means, declared the deed voidable and rescinded insofar as it concerned respondents’ shares, ordered reinstatement of Tax Declaration No. 18237, declared TCT No. T-40459 of no force and effect, and directed defendants to cede possession to respondents.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s factual findings that respondents did not freely give their land, but it modified the judgment by holding that the Deed of Donation was void ab initio rather than merely voidable because respondents’ consent was completely absent; the CA therefore declared the deed null and void insofar as it included respondents’ share, affirmed the RTC in other respects, and denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration by resolution dated June 2, 2014.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioners framed three principal issues for resolution: (1) whether the Deed of Donation executed by Prudencio, Valentin and Florentino in favor of petitioners is valid; (2) if there is a defect in Prudencio’s consent, whether the donation is void or merely voidable; and (3) if there is a defect in consent, whether the action has prescribed given that respondents filed suit in 2008, more than fourteen years after the 1994 deed.

Petitioners’ Contentions

Petitioners maintained that the Deed of Donation was valid and complied with the formalities of a donation, that respondents understood and voluntarily executed the deed because they appeared before the notary public and affixed their signatures, that Cresencia had served as Barangay Kagawad and therefore must have comprehended English, and that the cause of action was barred by the ten-year prescription applicable to actions founded on written contracts, such that respondents’ suit filed in 2008 was time-barred.

Respondents’ Contentions

Respondents contended that Valentin deceived them into signing a document they believed was for partition and transfer of title, that their consent to any donation was absent because they lacked understanding of the English-language document and of its contents, that the notary did not explain the instrument nor furnish them a copy, and that they discovered the fraud in 2008 when they learned that their portion no longer appeared under TCT No. T-26701; respondents argued that the Deed of Donation is void and therefore subject to attack at any time.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the Deed of Donation is null and void insofar as it purported to include the share of respondents because their consent was absent, that the notarized instrument’s presumption of regularity was overcome, and that the action to annul the void deed is imprescriptible under Article 1410 of the Civil Code.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that donation is an act of liberality under Civil Code, Article 725 and that a valid contract requires the requisites of Article 1318, including the consent of the contracting parties. The Court explained that valid consent must be intelligent, free and spontaneous, and that complete absence of consent renders the contract void ab initio while a vice of consent renders it merely voidable; the Court found that respondents never consented to donate because Valentin misrepresented the instrument as a partition, did not read or explain its contents to them, and did not give them a copy, and because the notary public did not explain the deed’s contents and simply requested signat

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 213001)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners are Lauro Cardinez, Isidro Cardinez, Jesus Cardinez, Virgie Cardinez, Flora Laconsay and Aida Dela Cruz who were named transferees in the contested deed and title.
Respondents are spouses Prudencio and Cresencia Cardinez who filed suit for annulment of the deed, recovery of possession, and damages.
The case arose from Civil Case No. 7449 before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, San Fernando City, La Union, which issued a decision on February 28, 2012.
The RTC decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98861, which rendered a decision on September 30, 2013 and denied reconsideration in a June 2, 2014 resolution.
The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court assailing the CA decisions.

Key Factual Allegations

The subject property comprised a 1,950-square meter parcel formerly owned by the late Simeona Cardinez and partitioned among her sons Prudencio, Florentino, and Valentin, with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-26701 issued on April 23, 1986 in the sons' names.
Prudencio occupied the middle portion and maintained Tax Declaration No. 18237 for his share, while in 1994 a notarized instrument dated April 26, 1994 purportedly donated shares to petitioners and resulted in issuance of TCT No. T-40459 in petitioners' names on November 2, 1994.
Valentin solicited signatures from Prudencio and Cresencia on a document written in English after representing to them that it was for partition, cancellation of TCT No. T-26701, and transfer of shares to their respective names.
Prudencio and Cresencia signed the document without reading it or receiving a copy, allegedly due to their limited education and trust in Valentin.
Petitioners and others thereafter caused registration and taxation entries reflecting petitioners as owners, and petitioners resisted vacating the disputed portion when challenged.

Documentary and Witness Evidence

Respondents offered TCT No. T-26701, Tax Declaration No. 18237, the purported April 26, 1994 Deed of Donation, an affidavit of Valentin dated October 7, 1982, and a survey plan.
Petitioners offered the same Deed of Donation, TCT No. T-40459, corresponding tax declarations TD 93-040-19467 and TD 93-040-19468, the Valentin affidavit, and a tax receipt showing possession.
The notary public Mario Rodriguez testified that all parties personally appeared for notarization of the Deed of Donation.
Respondents testified that they did not understand the contents of the document, that Valentin did not read it to them, that they were not given copies, and that the notary did not explain its contents to them.
Petitioners elicited testimony that respondents were capable of understanding English and that respondents personally signed before the notary, while Isidro admitted his mother Eufrosina had died before the Deed was executed.

Trial Court Findings

The RTC found that respondents established by preponderance of evidence that Valentin employed deceit to induce respondents to sign what was in fact a Deed of Donation, and that respondents’ consent was vitiated.
The RTC held that the Deed of Donation was voidable due to defective consent and therefore rescinded the deed insofar as it pertained to respondents’ shares, declared TCT No. T-40459 of no force and effect, reinstated Tax Declaration No. 18237, an