Case Summary (G.R. No. 211687)
Initiation of Proceedings
On July 23, 1997, Fausta filed suit for nullity of the Deed, recovery of ownership, reconveyance, and damages, alleging that her illiteracy and advanced age were exploited through deceit and false pretenses. She contended that the Deed did not reflect the true agreement, that other heirs were preterited, that she never appeared before the notary, did not secure a community tax certificate as stated, and remained in actual possession. She sought a preliminary injunction to stop the spouses from fencing the property.
Trial Court Proceedings and Evidence
The Spouses De Vera moved to dismiss and opposed injunctive relief. The RTC denied the motion, granted a temporary restraining order, and dispensed with a preliminary injunction. Fausta and her daughter Lourdes testified on her illiteracy and lack of understanding. Fausta died in 2002 and her heirs were substituted. Petitioners/Eugenio and witness Valentino admitted Fausta’s illiteracy but insisted the Deed was properly explained and executed.
RTC Decision and Rationale
On July 7, 2009, the RTC dismissed Fausta’s complaint for lack of proof. It held that Fausta’s bare denials and Lourdes’s testimony failed to establish deceit or misrepresentation. The court found the Deed duly signed, witnessed, and notarized, noting no other heirs protested the transfer of Fausta and Genaro’s shares.
Court of Appeals Decision and Rationale
On September 26, 2013, the CA reversed. It applied Civil Code Article 1332, presuming fraud or mistake when an illiterate party thumbmarks a contract not fully explained. Fausta’s admission of illiteracy triggered this presumption. The spouses failed to prove the Deed’s contents had been explained. The CA declared the Deed null and void, ordered restoration of the land to Fausta’s heirs, and awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
Issues on Review
Whether Fausta freely gave her consent to the Deed or whether her consent was vitiated by fraud or mistake, invoking the presumption under Civil Code Article 1332 and rendering the contract voidable.
Legal Principles on Consent and Voidable Contracts
Under the 1987 Constitution and Civil Code:
- A valid contract requires free, voluntary, and informed consent (Arts. 1305, 1318–1319).
- Consent vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud makes the contract voidable (Arts. 1330, 1390).
- Article 1332 presumes fraud or mistake when a party unable to read signs a contract that is not explained; the enforcing party must prove the contract’s contents were fully explained by clear and convincing evidence.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Article 1332
The Court identified the issue as factual and noted appellate deference to CA findings except where CA and RTC conflict. Fausta’s testimony and Lourdes’s corroboration, along with admissions by Eugenio and Valentino, clearly established Fausta’s illiteracy. This activated the presumption of fraud or mistake under Article 1332. The spouses bore the burden to show the Deed’s contents were fully e
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 211687)
Factual Background
- Vicente Catungal owned two parcels of unregistered land in Macabito, Calasiao, Pangasinan, and died on December 1, 1944, survived by five children including Fausta and Genaro Catungal.
- On July 23, 1994, Fausta and Genaro executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs with Absolute Sale, transferring the two parcels to spouses Eugenio de Vera and Rosalia Padilla for ₱30,000; Fausta affixed her thumbmark in lieu of a signature.
- Witnesses to the Deed were Teodoro de Vera and Valentino de Vera; new tax declarations were issued in the spouses’ names.
- Eugenio de Vera was a grandchild of Vicente, thus a legal and compulsory heir; after the sale, spouses De Vera allowed Fausta to continue residing on the land.
Complaint and Trial Court Proceedings
- On July 23, 1997, Fausta filed a complaint for nullity of documents, recovery of ownership, reconveyance, and damages, alleging deceit, false pretense and misrepresentation by spouses De Vera in obtaining her thumbmark.
- Fausta claimed the Deed misrepresented indebtedness evidence, excluded other heirs (pretention), lacked her understanding due to illiteracy, was not notarized before her, misstated a community tax certificate, and that she remained in actual possession.
- Fausta sought a preliminary injunction or TRO to prevent fences from blocking her access; the RTC denied the motion to dismiss on December 3, 2002, granted a TRO the same day, and dispensed with a preliminary injunction thereafter.
- Spouses De Vera filed an Answer, asserting validity of the Deed, absence of fraud, compliance with publication and registration, and Genaro’s co-vendor status; they prayed for moral and exemplary damages plus attorney’s fees.
Trial Court Findings and Decision
- Fausta and her daughter Lourdes Lopez testified on Fausta’s illiteracy, continuous