Title
Supreme Court
Oberes vs. Oberes
Case
G.R. No. 211422
Decision Date
Oct 16, 2019
Dispute over Lot 5306 inheritance; petitioners sought annulment of a deed of sale, claiming forgery by illiterate co-heir. Court ruled action time-barred, upheld voidable sale due to vitiated consent, denied partition claim.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 105992)

Trial Court’s Findings and Judgment (April 24, 2009)

The RTC recognized the two-lot inheritance and upheld the oral partition. It found Gaudencio could not read or write and simply “copied” his purported signature under spousal instruction, without proof the deed’s contents were explained. The court declared the 1973 Deed of Sale null and void, awarded half of Lot 5306 to each co-owner, and ordered judicial partition.

Court of Appeals’ Prescription Ruling (June 4, 2013)

The CA agreed that Gaudencio was illiterate and that fraud vitiated consent, making the deed voidable. However, it held petitioners learned of respondent’s fraud in May 1994, when they executed the Affidavit of Waiver and observed Adriano’s refusal to sign. Under Article 1391, the four-year period for annulment ran from that discovery. Because the complaint was filed in May 2002—eight years later—the action had prescribed. The complaint was dismissed.

Issues Presented

I. Did the CA err in dismissing the complaint based on prescription?
II. Did the CA err in treating the deed as voidable rather than void?

Supreme Court’s Legal Framework on Consent and Fraud

  • A contract requires intelligent, free, and spontaneous consent (Arts. 1318, 1475).
  • Illiteracy and use of a foreign language give rise to a presumption of fraud or mistake (Art. 1332).
  • The proponent must prove that the contract’s terms were fully explained in the dialect understood (Art. 1332).
  • Failure to disclose material facts when under a duty to do so constitutes fraud (Art. 1339).
  • Voidable contracts (fraud, mistake) must be annulled within four years from discovery (Arts. 1390–1391).

Application of Law to Facts

The Court found no dispute over Gaudencio’s illiteracy or the English drafting of the deed. Adriano failed to present evidence that he explained the deed’s substance in Visayan. The presumption of fraud thus stood, vitiating Gaudencio’s consent and rendering the sale contract voidable. Petitioners Ciriaco and Cesario, having accepted and sold their own shares from the oral partition of Lot 11450, lacked title to Lot 5306 and could not allege a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.