Mapalo v.

Mapalo

G.R. Nos. L-21489 & L-21628; 19 May 1966

PRICE | Meeting of minds as to price

FACTS:

Spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba, simple illiterate farmers, were registered owners of a residential land
in Manaoag, Pangasinan. Said spouses out of love for Maximo Mapalo Miguels brother who was about to get
married decided to donate the eastern half of the land to him. As a result, in 1936, they were deceived into
signing a deed of absolute sale over the entire land in Maximos favor. The document of sale stated a
consideration of P500.00 which Spouses Mapalo did not receive anything. Following the execution of document,
Miguel and Candida built a fence of permanent structure in the middle of the land segregating the eastern portion
from its western portion. 13 years later, Maximo sold for P2,500.00 the entire land in favor of the Narcicos and
they registered the same. Narcisos filed to be declared owners of the entire land with possession of its western
portion. Spouses Mapalo contend that the deed of sale of 1936 was procured with fraud and the Narcicos were
buyers in bad faith. Also, it was invoked that the deeds of sale be declared null and void as to the western half of
said land for being fictitious. In reversing the ruling of the CFI, the CA averred that having obtained the deed of
sale by fraud, the same was voidable, not void ab initio and the action to annul the same had already prescribed
which was within 4 years of notice of fraud. While they are definitely victims, they lost their right by prescription.

ISSUE:

Does the contract involve no consideration or false consideration?

HELD:

The rule under the Civil Code, be it the old or the new, is that contracts without a cause or consideration produce
no effect whatsoever. Nonetheless, under the Old Civil Code, the statement of a false consideration renders the
contract voidable, unless it is proven that it is supported by another real and licit consideration. And it is further
provided by the Old Civil Code that the action for annulment of a contract on the ground of falsity of consideration
shall last 4 years, the term to run from the date of the consummation of the contract. In the present case, the
contract of sale has no consideration and therefore it is void and inexistent for the said consideration of P500.00
was totally absent. Purchase price which appears thereon as paid has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to
vendor. This is contrary to what is meant by a contract that states a false consideration is one that has in fact a
real consideration but the same is not the one stated in the document. Needless to add, the inexistence of a
contract is permanent and incurable and cannot be the subject of prescription.
Mapalo v. Mapalo

Facts:

Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba, simple illiterate farmers, were registered owners of a residential land in
Manaoag, Pangasinan. Out of love and affection for Maximo Mapalo, Miguels brother who was about to get
married, they decided to donate the eastern half of the land. However, they were deceived into signing a deed of
absolute sale of the entire land on October 15, 1936. The document showed a consideration of P500, but the
spouses actually did not receive anything. The spouses built a fence segregating the donated land. They
continued to possess the western part up to the present. Not known to them, on March 15, 1938, Maximo
registered the deed of sale in his favor and was able to obtain a TCT. On October 20, 1951, Maximo sold the
entire land to the Narcisos, and a TCT was issued. The Narcisos took possession of the eastern part and filed a
suit against Miguel and Candida, as well as Floro Guieb and Rosalia Mapalo Guieb who had a house on the
western portion consented by the spouses. The spouses filed an answer with counterclaim, seeking cancellation
of the TCT of the Narcisos on the ground that their consent to the deed of sale in favor of Maximo was obtained
through fraud. The spouses also instituted a complaint to nullify the deeds of sale in 1936 and 1951. The trial
court tried the case jointly. It ruled in favor of Miguel and Candida. The appellate court, however, reversed the
judgment and rendered the sale valid on the ground of prescription. According to the appellate court, the sale is
voidable and subject to annulment only within 4 years after discovery of fraud. It reckoned March 15, 1938, the
date of registration, to be the reckoning period.

Issues:

(1) Whether, under the old civil code which was in effect during the execution of the sale, the sale to Maximo is
void or merely voidable

(2) Whether the Narcisos were purchasers in good faith

Held:

(1) For a contract to exist at all, three essential requisites must concur: (1) consent, (2) object, and (3) cause or
consideration. The Court of Appeals is right in that the element of consent is present as to the deed of sale of
October 15, 1936. For consent was admittedly given, albeit obtained by fraud. Accordingly, said consent, although
defective, did exist. In such case, the defect in the consent would provide a ground for annulment of a voidable
contract, not a reason for nullity ab initio. The parties are agreed that the second element of object is likewise
present in the deed of October 15, 1936, namely, the parcel of land subject matter of the same. Not so, however,
as to the third element of cause or consideration. As regards the eastern portion of the land, the Mapalo spouses
are not claiming the same, it being their stand that they have donated and freely given said half of their land to
Maximo Mapalo. And since they did not appeal from the decision of the trial court finding that there was a valid
and effective donation of the eastern portion of their land in favor of Maximo Mapalo, the same pronouncement
has become final as to them, rendering it no longer proper herein to examine the existence, validity efficacy of
said donation as to said eastern portion. 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.

Was there a cause or consideration to support the existence of a contrary of sale? Since the deed of sale of 1936
is governed by the Old Civil Code, it should be asked whether its case is one wherein there is no consideration, or
one with a statement of a false consideration. If the former, it is void and inexistent; if the latter, only voidable,
under the Old Civil Code. As observed earlier, the deed of sale of 1936 stated that it had for its consideration Five
Hundred (P500.00) Pesos. In fact, however, said consideration was totally absent. According to Manresa, what is
meant by a contract that states a false consideration is one that has in fact a real consideration but the same is
not the one stated in the document. A contract of purchase and sale is null and void and produces no effect
whatsoever where the same is without cause or consideration in that the purchase price which appears thereon
as paid has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.

(2) What was the necessity, purpose and reason of Pacifico Narciso in still going to the spouses Mapalo and
asked them to permit their brother Maximo to dispose of the above-described land? To this question it is safe to
state that this act of Pacifico Narciso is a conclusive manifestation that they (the Narcisos) did not only have prior
knowledge of the ownership of said spouses over the western half portion in question but that they also have
recognized said ownership. It also conclusively shows their prior knowledge of the want of dominion on the part of
their vendor Maximo Mapalo over the whole land and also of the flaw of his title thereto. Under this situation, the
Narcisos may be considered purchasers in value but certainly not as purchasers in good faith.
RONGAVILLA V. CA G.R. NO. 83974

Facts:

The Dela Cruz sisters were the aunts of Dolores Rongavilla. They borrowed P2,000 from the Rongavillas to have
their rooftop repaired. Later, petitioners went back to their aunts to have them sign a contract. Taking advantage
of their lack of education, the sisters were made to believe that such document, typewritten in English, was just for
the acknowledgment of their debt. After four years, petitioners asked their aunts to vacate the land subject to
litigation claiming that she and her husband were the new owners. After verifying with the Registry of Deeds, the
aunts were surprised that what they have signed was actually a deed of sale. Their land title was cancelled and
the ownership was transferred to their nephews. The land was mortgaged with the Cavite Development Bank.

Issue:

Was the deed of sale void?

Held:

Yes. While petitioners claimed they were regularly paying taxes on the land in question, they had no second
thoughts stating at the trial and on appeal that they had resorted to doctoring the price stated in the disputed
Deed of Sale, allegedly to save on taxes. While it is true that public documents are presumed genuine and regular
under the Rules of Court, this presumption is a rebuttable presumption which may be overcome by clear, strong
and convincing evidence.
Rongavilla vs Court of Appeals

294 SCRA 289 August 17, 1998

Nature:

Petition for review on certiorari of a decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals

Facts:

The property subject of this controversy is a parcel of land owned by sisters Mercedes and Florencia Dela Cruzin
the proportion of with Juanita Jimenez, their niece and sister of Dolores Rongavilla (petitioner herein). After the
land was subdivided, the Original Certificate of Title and Transfer Certificate of Title was kept in the possession of
Juanita Jimenez.

In May 1976, the Dela Cruz sisters borrowed P2000.00 from the Spouses Rongavilla for the purpose of having
their (Dela Cruzes) rooftop repaired. A month later, Rongavilla and Jiemnez went to their aunts home, bringing
with them a document typewritten in English for signature of their aunts. When Mercedes asked in Tagalog what it
was about, Rongavilla answered that it was just a document evidencing the P2000.00 loan. On account of that
representation, the Dela Cruzes signed said document.

After 4 years (September 1980), Rongavilla went to the house of Dela Cruz and asked them to vacate the land in
question, claiming that she and her husband were already its new owners. Upon checking with the Office of the
Register of Deeds, they discovered that their Certificate of Title had been cancelled and a new one indeed had
been issued in favour of the Rongavillas. They further discovered that said land had been mortgaged with the
Cavite Development Bank, and only then did they realize that what they had previously been asked to sign was a
deed of sale.

The Dela Cruzes filed a complaint before the Pasay RTC to have the deed of sale declared void and inexistent.
They contended that they did not sell the property, they did not receive any consideration on the supposed sale,
that their title to the property was cancelled to their damage and prejudice. They also claimed moral and
exemplary damages.

On the other hand, the Rongavillas allege that the land had been voluntarily sold, that there was consent to the
sale, there was sufficient consideration, that the Dela Cruz sisters had been fully apprised by the Notary Public as
to what the document was about, that prescription had set in, and that the deed of sale contained all the requisites
of a contract.

The trial court ruled that the deed of sale was void and inexistent. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed this decision.

Issue:

WON the disputed Deed of Sale is void and inexistent

Held//Ratio:

Yes. As found by the trial court, the Dela Cruz sisters were misled by Rongavilla into believeing that what they
signed was a document acknowledging a loan. The consent was not merely vitiated, it did not exist at all. The sale
of the property was far from their minds.

As to the issue of consideration, the court notes that the deed makes mention of a consideration of
P2000.00.However, when the property was mortgaged, its value was P40000.00. The gross inadequacy of the
consideration deters the Court from believing that the property was actually sold. It is more reasonable to assume
that the amount of P2000.00 in the deed refers to the loan extended by Rongavilla to her aunts. There was no
consideration in this purported transaction.

Moreover, Jimenez and her layer repeatedly declared that the true consideration paid was P7800.00 and not
theP2000.00 that was stated in the deed of sale. It is also evident in the deed of sale that the consideration
originally typed therein (P3000.00) was later on substituted by the handwritten amount (P2000.00). The
Rongavillas may have many possible motives for these alterations, but these testimonies only establish one thing:
the non-sanctity of the deed as a public instrument.

On the issue of prescription, the Court ruled that the document having been declared void, the statute of
limitations cannot apply. In this case, lack of consent and consideration made the deeds of sale void altogether
and rendered them subject to attack at any time.

Proper remedy: reconveyance.