Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MAXIMO MAPALO,
ET AL., respondents.
G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966
FACTS: The spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba, simple
illiterate farmers, were registered owners of a 1,635-square-meter
residential land in Manaoag, Pangasinan. Said spouses-owners, out
of love and affection for Maximo Mapalo a brother of Miguel who
was about to get married decided to donate the eastern half of
the land to him. As a result, however, they were deceived into
signing, on October 15, 1936, a deed of absolute sale over
the entire land in his favor. Their signatures thereto were procured
by fraud, that is, they were made to believe by Maximo Mapalo and
by the attorney who acted as notary public who "translated" the
document, that the same was a deed of donation in Maximo's favor
covering one-half (the eastern half) of their land. Although the
document of sale stated a consideration of Five Hundred (P500.00)
Pesos, the aforesaid spouses did not receive anything of value for
the land.
Following the execution of the afore-stated document, the spouses
Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba immediately built a fence of
permanent structure in the middle of their land segregating the
eastern portion from its western portion. Said fence still exists. The
spouses have always been in continued possession over the western
half of the land up to the present.
Not known to them, meanwhile, Maximo Mapalo, on March 15, 1938,
registered the deed of sale in his favor and obtained in his name
Transfer Certificate of Title over the entire land. Thirteen years later,
he sold for P2,500.00 said entire land in favor of the Narcisos.
The Narcisos took possession only of the eastern portion of the land
in 1951, after the sale in their favor was made. On February 7, 1952
they filed suit to be declared owners of the entire land, for
possession of its western portion; for damages; and for rentals. It
was brought against the Mapalo spouses as well as against Floro
Guieb and Rosalia Mapalo Guieb who had a house on the western
part of the land with the consent of the spouses Mapalo and Quiba.
The Mapalo spouses filed their answer with a counterclaim on March
17, 1965, seeking cancellation of the Transfer Certificate of Title of
the Narcisos as to the western half of the land, on the grounds that
their (Mapalo spouses) signatures to the deed of sale of 1936 was
procured by fraud and that the Narcisos were buyers in bad faith.
They asked for reconveyance to them of the western portion of the
land and issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in their names as
to said portion.
In addition, the Mapalo spouses filed on December 16, 1957 their
own complaint against the aforestated Narcisos and Maximo
Mapalo. They asked that the deeds of sale of 1936 and of 1951 over
the land in question be declared null and void as to the western half
of said land.
Now, as to the western portion, however, the fact not disputed
herein is that no donation by the Mapalo spouses obtained as to
said portion. Accordingly, we start with the fact that liberality as a
cause or consideration does not exist as regards the western portion
of the land in relation to the deed of 1936; that there was no
donation with respect to the same.
ISSUE: Whether a deed which states a consideration that in fact did
not exist, is a contract without consideration, and therefore void ab
initio, or a contract with a false consideration, and therefore, at least
under the Old Civil Code, voidable.
RULING: A contract without a consideration is null and void.
demand the execution of a notarized deed of sale for the 14/16 pro
indiviso portion of the fishpond. She is not entitled because, as
already held, the alleged sales in her favor are void.
Anent the first main issue as to whether the Kasulatan over the 512square meter lot is voidable for vitiated consent, the answer is in
the affirmative.
FACTS: As established during the trial, Sps. Lequin bought the entire
subject property consisting of 10,115 square meters from Carlito de
Leon. The title of the subject property was duly transferred to Sps.
Lequins names. The Vizcondes, on the other hand, bought the dried
up canal consisting of 1,012 square meters from de Leon. This dried
up canal is adjacent to the subject property of Sps. Lequin and is the
lot or area between the subject property and the public road
(Sto. Rosario to Magsaysay).
Before this factual clarification was had, the Vizcondes, however,
made a claim against Sps. Lequin in 1997, when subject lot was resurveyed by Sps. Lequin, that the Vizcondes also bought a 1,012
square-meter lot from de Leon. Undeniably, the 1,012 square
meters was a portion of the 10,115 square meters which de Leon
sold to Sps. Lequin.
Obviously, Sps. Lequin respected the Vizcondes claim if not, to
maintain peace and harmonious relations and segregated the
claimed portion. The situation was further complicated by the fact
that both parties built their respective houses on the 1,012 squaremeter portion claimed by the Vizcondes, it being situated near the
public road.
To resolve the impasse on the Vizcondes claim over 1,012 square
meters of Sps. Lequin property and the latters house built thereon,
and to iron out their supposed respective rights, Sps. Lequin
consulted a notary public, who advised and proposed the solution of
a contract of sale which both parties consented to and is now the
object of the instant action. Thus, the contract of sale was executed
on February 12, 2000 with Sps. Lequin, being the title holders of the
subject property who were ostensibly selling to the Vizcondes 512
square meters of the subject property while at the same time
paying PhP 50,000 to the Vizcondes for the other 500 square-meter
portion.
In July 2000, Sps. Lequin tried to develop the dried up canal located
between their 500-square meter lot and the public road. The
Vizcondes objected, claiming ownership of said dried up canal.
This prompted Sps. Lequin to look into the ownership of the dried up
canal and the 1,012 square-meter lot claimed by the
Vizcondes. Carlito de Leon told Sps. Lequin that what he had sold to
the Vizcondes was the dried up canal and that the 1,012-square
meter lot claimed by the Vizcondes really belongs to Sps. Lequin.
Thus, Sps. Lequin filed a Complaint [4] for Declaration of Nullity of
Contract, Sum of Money and Damages against the Vizcondes for the
declaration of the February 12, 2000 Kasulatan as null and void ab
initio, the return of PhP 50,000 they paid to the Vizcondes, and
various damages. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 4063.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Kasulatan covering the 512 square-meter
lot is a valid contract of sale; and who is the legal owner of the other
500 square-meter lot.
RULING: We find for Sps. Lequin.
Article (Art.) 1330 of the Civil Code provides that when consent is
given through fraud, the contract is voidable.
There was vitiated consent on the part of Sps. Lequin. There was
fraud in the execution of the contract used on Sps. Lequin which
affected their consent. Sps. Lequin reliance and belief on the
wrongful claim by the Vizcondes operated as a concealment of a
material fact in their agreeing to and in readily executing the
contract of sale, as advised and proposed by a notary
public. Believing that Carlito de Leon indeed sold a 1,012-square
meter portion of the subject property to the Vizcondes, Sps. Lequin
signed the contract of sale based on the Vizcondes
representations. Had Sps. Lequin known, as they eventually would
sometime in late 2000 or early 2001 when they made the necessary
inquiry from Carlito de Leon, they would not have entered or signed
the contract of sale, much less pay PhP 50,000 for a portion of the
subject lot which they fully own. Thus, Sps. Lequin consent was
vitiated by fraud or fraudulent machinations of Raymundo. In the
eyes of the law, Sps. Lequin are the rightful and legal owners of the
subject 512 square-meter lot anchored on their purchase thereof
from de Leon. This right must be upheld and protected.
On the issue of lack of consideration, the contract of sale
or Kasulatan states that the Vizcondes paid Sps. Lequin PhP 15,000
for the 512-square meter portion.
On its face, the contract of sale appears to be supported by a
valuable consideration. We, however, agree with the trial courts
finding that this is a simulated sale and unsupported by any
consideration, for the Vizcondes never paid the PhP 15,000
purported purchase price.
Moreover, the evidence of Sps. Lequin was uncontroverted as the
Vizcondes failed to adduce any proof that they indeed paid PhP
15,000 to Sps. Lequin. Indeed, having asserted their purchase of the
512-square meter portion of Sps. Lequin based on the Kasulatan, it
behooves upon the Vizcondes to prove such affirmative defense of
purchase. Unless the party asserting the affirmative defense of an
issue sustains the burden of proof, his or her cause will not
succeed. If he or she fails to establish the facts of which the matter
asserted is predicated, the complainant is entitled to a verdict or
decision in his or her favor.[16]
In the instant case, the record is bereft of any proof of payment by
the Vizcondes and, thus, their affirmative defense of the purported
purchase of the 512-square meter portion fails.
Consideration and consent are essential elements in a contract of
sale. Where a partys consent to a contract of sale is vitiated or
where there is lack of consideration due to a simulated price, the
contract is null and void ab initio.
The PhP 50,000 paid by Sps. Lequin to the Vizcondes as
consideration for the transfer of the 500-square meter lot to Sps.
Lequin must be restored to the latter. Otherwise, an unjust
enrichment situation ensues. The facts clearly show that the 500square meter lot is legally owned by Sps. Lequin as shown by the