PARAGAS vs.HEIRS OF DOMINADOR BALACANO FACTS: Gregorio Balacano, married to Lorenza Sumigcay, was the registered owner of Lot 1175-E and Lot 1175-F of the Subd. Plan Psd-38042. Gregorio and Lorenza had three children, namely: Domingo, Catalino and Alfredo, all surnamed Balacano. Lorenza died on December 11, 1991. Gregorio, on the other hand, died on July 28, 1996. Prior to his death, Gregorio was admitted on June 28, 1996, transferred hospital in the afternoon of July 19, 1996 until his death. Gregorio purportedly sold on July 22, 1996, or barely a week prior to his death, a portion of Lot 1175-E (15,925 square meters out of total area of 22,341 square meters) and the whole Lot 1175-F to Spouses Paragas for the total consideration of P500,000.00. This sale appeared in a deed of absolute sale and was notarized by Atty. De Guzman. Gregorios certificates of title were consequently cancelled and new certificates of title were issued in favor of the Spouses Paragas. The Spouses Paragas then sold on October 17, 1996 a portion of Lot 1175-E consisting of 6,416 square meters to Catalino for the total consideration of P60,000.00. Domingo’s children filed on October 22, 1996 a complaint for annulment of sale and partition against Catalino and the Spouses Paragas. They essentially alleged in asking for the nullification of the deed of sale that: (1) their grandfather Gregorio could not have appeared before the notary public on July 22, 1996 at Santiago City because he was then confined at the Veterans Memorial Hospital in Quezon City; (2) at the time of the alleged execution of the deed of sale, Gregorio was seriously ill, in fact dying at that time, which vitiated his consent to the disposal of the property; and (3) Catalino manipulated the execution of the deed and prevailed upon the dying Gregorio to sign his name on a paper the contents of which he never understood because of his serious condition. Alternatively, they alleged that assuming Gregorio was of sound and disposing mind, he could only transfer a half portion of Lots 1175-E and 1175-F as the other half belongs to their grandmother Lorenza who predeceased Gregorio they claimed that Lots 1175-E and 1175-F form part of the conjugal partnership properties of Gregorio and Lorenza. Finally, they alleged that the sale to the Spouses Paragas covers only a 5-hectare portion of Lots 1175-E and 1175-F leaving a portion of 6,416 square meters that Catalino is threatening to dispose. They asked for the nullification of the deed of sale executed by Gregorio and the partition of Lots 1175-E and 1175-F. They likewise asked for damages. Plaintiff-appellant Nanette Balacano testified to prove the material allegations of their complaint. On Gregorios medical condition, she declared that: (1) Gregorio, who was then 81 years old, weak and sick, was brought to the hospital in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya on June 28, 1996 and stayed there until the afternoon on July 19, 1996; (2) thereafter, Gregorio, who by then was weak and could no longer talk and whose condition had worsened, was transferred in the afternoon of July 19, 1996 to the Veterans Memorial Hospital in Quezon City where Gregorio died. (3) Gregorio signed the deed after receiving the money from Rudy. 1996. Gregorio was ill. He likewise stated that of the stated P500. De Guzman read and explained the contents of the deed to Gregorio. Additionally. They uniformly declared that: (1) on July 18. Nueva Vizcaya. Rudy paid Gregorio P450. in fact. Because of the seriousness of his illness. he notarized the deed and entered it in his register only on July 22. 1996. For his part. was actually executed on July 18. with the modification that Lots 1175E and 1175-F were adjudged as belonging to the estate of Gregorio Balacano. Atty. rendered the decision declaring null and void the deed of sale purportedly executed by Gregorio Balacano in favor of the spouses Paragas. Gregorio was of sound and disposing mind and his consent to the sale was in no wise vitiated at that time. The lower court also ruled that Lots 1175-E and 1175-F were Gregorios and Lorenzas conjugal partnership properties. which appeared to have been executed on July 22. noting that at the time Gregorio executed the deed. She likewise testified on their agreement for attorneys fees with their counsel and the litigation expenses they incurred.000. after trial. they went to the hospital in Bayombong. They presented as witnesses Notary Public de Guzman and instrumental witness Antonio to prove Gregorios execution of the sale and the circumstances under the deed was executed.00 consideration in the deed. 1996.00 in the hospital because Rudy had previously paid Gregorio P50. not at the time Gregorio signed the deed of sale on July 18.000. (4) Julia and Antonio signed the deed as witnesses. He claimed that he did not find it necessary to state the precise date and place of execution (Bayombong. Defendants posit that Gregorio’s consent to the sale should be determined. He also claimed that there was no entry on the date when he signed. Antonio added that he was asked by Rudy to take pictures of Gregorio signing the deed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the trial court. but at the time when he agreed to sell the property in June 1996 or a month prior to the deeds signing.00. 1996 because she stayed at the hospital the whole of that day and saw no visitors. it is not expected that Gregorio Balacano would be negotiating a contract of sale. He also explained that the deed. who got up from the bed with Julias help. The lower court. instead of Santiago City) of the deed of sale because the deed is merely a confirmation of a previously agreed contract between Gregorio and the Spouses Paragas. He described Gregorio as still strong but sickly. 1996. and in June 1996. 1996.She claimed that Gregorio could not have signed a deed of sale on July 19. nor did he remember reading Santiago City as the place of execution of the deed. Nueva Vizcaya where Gregorio was confined with Rudy. that.000. ISSUE: (1) WON Gregorio gave an intelligent consent to the sale of Lots 1175-E and 1175-F when he signed the deed of sale? . (2) Atty. Gregorio had previously asked him to prepare a deed that Gregorio eventually signed on July 18. 1996. De Guzman explained that the execution of the deed was merely a confirmation of a previous agreement between the Spouses Paragas and Gregorio that was concluded at least a month prior to Gregorios death. the children of Eligio.(2) WON Deed of Sale purportedly executed between petitioners and the late Gregorio Balacano was null and void HELD: It is not disputed that when Gregorio signed the deed of sale. On January 3. Given that Gregorio purportedly executed a deed during the last stages of his battle against his disease.On March 12. ignorance. Gregorios death was neither sudden nor immediate. the father of respondent. the Court seriously doubt whether Gregorio could have read.000. One need not stretch his imagination to surmise that Catalino was in cahoots with petitioners in maneuvering the alleged sale. de Guzman and Antonio which the Court did not find credible. Gregorio was an octogenarian at the time of the alleged execution of the contract and suffering from liver cirrhosis at that circumstances which raise grave doubts on his physical and mental capacity to freely consent to the contract. and another consisting of 451 sq. the irregular and invalid notarization of the deed is a falsity that raises doubts on the regularity of the transaction itself. Contending that the contract price for the two parcels of land was grossly inadequate. one consisting of 500 sq. Eligio Herrera. There was no conclusive evidence that the contents of the deed were sufficiently explained to Gregorio before he affixed his signature. Additionally. for the price of P1. or fully understood. mental weakness. 1996. Jr. property or other relations. petitioners sold a portion of Lot 1175-E consisting of 6. the contents of the documents he signed or of the consequences of his act. Gregorio died of complications caused by cirrhosis of the liver. making the contract null and void. namely. Adding to the dubiety of the purported sale and further bolstering respondents claim that their uncle Catalino. paid in installments from November 30. had a hand in the execution of the deed is the fact that on 17 October 1996. Gregorio was seriously ill. The evidence the defendantsappellants offered to prove Gregorios consent to the sale consists of the testimonies of Atty. Consequently. m. 1990 to August 10.00.416 square meters to Catalino for P60. In the case at bar. and respondent Pastor Herrera. as he in fact died a week after the deeds signing. the Deed of Sale was allegedly signed by Gregorio on his death bed in the hospital. 1991.. as it shows that the deed was executed on July 22. Nueva Vizcaya. Gregorio’s consent to the sale of the lots was absent. tried to . 1996 at Bayombong. indigence. 1996 at Santiago City. was the owner of two parcels of land. the courts must be vigilant for his protection. one of the children of the decedent.000. petitioner bought from said landowner the first parcel. m. petitioner bought the second parcel. tender age or other handicap. Article 24 of the Civil Code tells us that in all contractual. 1991. Sr.. While the deed was indeed signed on July 18. the deed states otherwise. he fought at least a month-long battle against the disease until he succumbed to death on July 22. the spouses Paragas could not have made a subsequent transfer of the property to Catalino Balacano.000.000. Josefina Cavestany. when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence. for P750. FRANCISCO VS HERRERA FACTS: Eligio Herrera.. 1991. Sr. Respondents contention that he merely received payments on behalf of his father merely to avoid their misuse and that he did not intend to concur with the contracts is unconvincing. and (2) those declared to be so under Article 14092[11] of the Civil Code. It was only when respondent failed to convince petitioner to 1 2 . Hence. the legal effect is that the contract is voidable or annullable as specifically provided in Article 1390. allegedly by virtue of a sale in his favor since 1973. Finally. Article 1318 of the Civil Code states that no contract exists unless there is a concurrence of consent of the parties. the wife of Eligio. which can be express or implied. error. ISSUE: WON the assailed contracts of sale void or merely voidable and hence capable of being ratified HELD: It was established that the vendor Eligio. a voidable or annullable contract is one in which the essential requisites for validity under Article 1318 are present. respondent claimed ownership over the second parcel. intimidation. characterized by deteriorating mental and physical condition including loss of memory. CA affirmed trial court’s decision. Herrera. it is as if it has never been entered into and cannot be validated either by the passage of time or by ratification. object certain as subject matter. these are contracts that are valid and binding unless annulled through a proper action filed in court seasonably. Hence. If he was not agreeable with the contracts. violence. This is what happened in this case.negotiate with petitioner to increase the purchase price. By contrast. he could have immediately instituted the action for reconveyance and have the payments consigned with the court. There are two types of void contracts: (1) those where one of the essential requisites of a valid contract as provided for by Article 1318 1[10] of the Civil Code is totally wanting. but that the formers capacity to consent was vitiated by senile dementia. None of these happened. An annullable contract may be rendered perfectly valid by ratification. But. entered into an agreement with petitioner. When petitioner refused. if an insane or demented person does enter into a contract. respondent negotiated for the increase of the purchase price while receiving the installment payments. 1990. but vitiated by want of capacity. before the alleged sale to petitioner. or if this was impossible. was already incapacitated to give consent to a contract because he was already afflicted with senile dementia. or deceit. rather. the Court must rule that the assailed contracts are not void or inexistent per se. He likewise claimed that the first parcel was subject to the co-ownership of the surviving heirs of Francisca A. In his complaint. Sr. herein respondent then filed a complaint for annulment of sale. and cause of the obligation established. Article 1327 provides that insane or demented persons cannot give consent to a contract. A void or inexistent contract is one which has no force and effect from the very beginning. The Regional Trial Court declared the deed of sale null and void. considering that she died intestate on April 2. respondent also alleged that the sale of the two lots was null and void on the ground that at the time of sale. As found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. Sr. he could have prevented petitioner from delivering the payments. undue influence.. Sr. Implied ratification may take the form of accepting and retaining the benefits of a contract. Eligio. upon learning of the sale. Luzviminda Guiang so that she Guiang would advise her father. She wrote a letter to her mother informing her. Clearly. respondent was agreeable to the contracts. Sometime on February 14. Sometime on March 11. Sometime in January 1990.000. the youngest.735. in the absence of his wife Gilda Corpuz. with right of cancellation in favor of vendor should vendee fail to pay three successive installments. However.00 was to be paid in June . 1990. her husband sold to the petitioners-spouses one half of their conjugal property.00. and Jodie or Joji. After his wifes departure for Manila. The couple have three children. She was not able to go abroad.increase the price that the former instituted the complaint for reconveyance of the properties. but instead gave the letter to Mrs.They are thus adjoining neighbors of the Corpuzes. however. she became a victim of an unscrupulous illegal recruiter. to the defendants spouses Guiang. Sometime on April 22. GUIANG VS CA FACTS: Plaintiff Gilda Corpuz and defendant Judie Corpuz are legally married spouses. did not inform her father about this. This bolsters the view that indeed there was ratification. in the Middle East. 1988.000. One cannot negotiate for an increase in the price in one breath and in the same breath contend that the contract of sale is void. Gilda replied that she was objecting to the sale. bought a 421 sq. he sold to defendant Luzviminda Guiang thru a document known as Deed of Transfer of Rights the remaining one-half portion of their lot and the house standing thereon for a total consideration of P30. 1983. defendant Judie Corpuz pushed through the sale of the remaining one-half portion of Lot 9. with plaintiff-wife Gilda Corpuz as vendee. She found her children staying with other households. there is no showing that respondent returned the payments or made an offer to do so. Further. She stayed for sometime in Manila. Harriet and Joji were with Mr. defendant Judie Corpuz seldom went home to the conjugal dwelling. Block 8. Harriet Corpuz learned that her father intended to sell the remaining one-half portion including their house. On March 1. who was 15 years of age at the time their mother testified in court. of their homelot to defendants Guiangs.00 of which P5. Harriet 17 years of age. consisting of their residence and the lot on which it stood. Harriet. namely: Junie 18 years old. 1990. Gilda . Over the objection of private respondent and while she was in Manila seeking employment. Block 8. The consideration was payable in installment. Unfortunately. meter lot from Manuel Callejo who signed as vendor through a conditional deed of sale for a total consideration of P14. 1990. the couple Gilda and Judie Corpuz. the couple Gilda and Judie Corpuz sold one-half portion of their Lot No. 9. Only Junie was staying in their house. Plaintiff Gilda Corpuz left for Manila sometime in June 1989. plaintiff returned home. only he wanted to get more. Panes. The latter have since then occupied the one-half portion and built their house thereon . She was trying to look for work abroad. . The disposition or encumbrance is void. These powers do not include the powers of disposition or encumbrance which must have the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse. and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. The judgment wasrendered for the plaintiff and against the defendants. Gilda Corpuz. on direct examination. 124. the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person. private respondents consent to the contract of sale of their conjugal property was totally inexistent or absent. filing the same with the Municipal Trial Court. It becomes still clearer if we compare the same with the equivalent provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines. 173. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership property shall belong to both spouses jointly. intimidation. par. The wife may. Article 1390. Her husband was nowhere to be found. the other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. She was informed by her children that their father had a wife already. 1990.On March 16. In case of disagreement. ISSUE: (1) WON the contract of sale (Deed of Transfer of Rights) was merely voidable. subject to recourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy. to wit: Art. 2. CA affirmed the trial court’s decision. The error in petitioners contention is evident. and (2) WON such contract was ratified by private respondent when she entered into an amicable settlement with them HELD: (1) The Contract of Sale was not merely voidable but void. Thus. the provision of Article 173 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The alienation or encumbrance if so made however is not null and void. For staying in their house sold by her husband. the husband cannot generally alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. the disposition or encumbrance shall be void. The legal provision is clear. plaintiff was complained against by Guiang spouses before the Barangay authorities for trespassing . or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership . ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent. In this instance. In the absence of such authority or consent. i. Defendant-spouses Guiang followed thru the amicable settlement with a motion for the execution of the amicable settlement. when such consent is required. plaintiff went to the Barangay Captain for the annulment of the settlement. violence. contracts which were entered into by a person whose consent was obtained and vitiated through mistake. the husbands decision shall prevail. In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal properties.gathered her children together and stayed at their house. It is merely voidable. which must be availed of within five years from the date of the contract implementing such decision.e. However. the parties thereat signed a document known as amicable settlement. The offended wife may bring an action to annul the said alienation or encumbrance. Believing that she had received the shorter end of the bargain. during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned. undue influence or fraud. Under Article 166 of the Civil Code. testified thus: ART. refers to contracts visited by vices of consent. Subsequently. but had been separated de facto since 1974. It is thus clear that any alienation or encumbrance made after August 3. Both the Deed of Transfer of Rights and the amicable settlement are null and void. died on March 22. 4349-B-2 to respondent Spouses Mijares for P40. Failing to settle the matter amicably. To constitute a valid contract. The complaint was thereafter amended to include Vicente Reyes as one of the defendants. The absence of the consent of one renders the sale null and void.(n) This particular provision giving the wife ten (10) years during the marriage to annul the alienation or encumbrance was not carried over to the Family Code. The court rendered a decision declaring the sale of Lot No. may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. the last element being indubitably absent in the case at bar. Ignacia learned that on March 1. the nullity of the contract of sale is premised on the absence of private respondents consent. the Civil Code requires the concurrence of the following elements: (1) cause.000. through her counsel.Vicente misrepresented therein that his wife. the court authorized Vicente to sell the estate of Ignacia. 4349-B-2.000. She likewise found out that Vicente filed a petition for administration and appointment of guardian. approximately 396 square meters and registered in the name of Spouses Vicente Reyes and Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes. The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and the wife. is also void and inexistent. Said lot and the apartments built thereon were part of the spouses’ conjugal properties having been purchased using conjugal funds from their garments business. A contract which is the direct result of a previous illegal contract. 4349-B-2 void with respect to the share of Ignacia. and that he and their 5 minor children were her only heirs. HEIRS OF REYES vs MIJARES FACTS: The controversy stemmed from a dispute over Lot No. In sum. in its Order dated October 14. and (3) consent.00 to respondent spouses. Vicente sold Lot No. 1984. On September 29. she or her heirs after the dissolution of the marriage. 1982. while the vitiation thereof makes it merely voidable. Vicente and Ignacia were married in 1960.00 and ordered Vicente to return ½ thereof or P55. Sometime in 1984. It held that the purchase price of the lot was P110. .property. Ignacia. Only in the latter case can ratification cure the defect. On August 9.000. (2) object. 1983. 1988 when the Family Code took effect by the husband of the conjugal partnership property without the consent of the wife is null and void. 1422. sent a letter to respondent spouses demanding the return of her ½ share in the lot. 1983. 1996 a complaint for annulment of sale against respondent spouses. (Civil Code of the Philippines). the court appointed Vicente as the guardian of their minor children. Ignacia. (2) The amicable settlement did not ratify the contract. Should the wife fail to exercise this right. 1983. Art. Ignacia filed on June 4.00. may demand the value of property fraudulently alienated by the husband. Petitioners contended that they are entitled to reimbursement of the rentals collected on the apartment built on Lot No. It ruled that notwithstanding the absence of Ignacia’s consent to the sale. ISSUE: (1) What is the status of the sale of Lot No. On May 31. 4349-B-2 to respondent spouses? (2) Assuming that the sale is annullable. 4349-B-2. 4349-B-2 computed from March 1. Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court. 173. the court may compel her to grant the same… Art. 1990. should it be annulled in its entirety or only with respect to the share of Ignacia? (3) Are respondent spouses purchasers in good faith? HELD: (1) The sale was voidable. The absence of such consent renders the entire transaction merely voidable and not void. the same must be held valid in favor of respondents because they were innocent purchasers for value. Ignacia died and she was substituted by her compulsory heirs. when such consent is required. ask the courts for the annulment of any contract of the husband entered into without her consent. provide: Art. while respondent spouses claimed that they are buyers in good faith.Ignacia filed a motion for modification of the decision praying that the sale be declared void in its entirety and that the respondents be ordered to reimburse to her the rentals they collected on the apartments built on Lot No. The wife may. . Under the regime of the Civil Code. the governing laws at the time the assailed sale was contracted.000. bring an action for the annulment of the contract entered into by her husband without her consent. 1983. during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned.166. or is under civil interdiction or is confined in a leprosarium. Articles 166 and 173 of the Civil Code. she or her heirs after the dissolution of the marriage. the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of the conjugal partnership without the wife’s consent. or any act or contract of the husband which tends to defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. the trial court modified its decision by declaring the sale void in its entirety and ordering Vicente Reyes to reimburse respondent spouses the purchase price of P110. The wife may. during the marriage and within ten years from the transaction questioned. the alienation or encumbrance of a conjugal real property requires the consent of the wife. Unless the wife has been declared a non compos mentis or a spendthrift. Should the wife fail to exercise this right. If she refuses unreasonably to give her consent. Pending the appeal. 1982. Obviously. (2) the alleged death of Ignacia was reported to the Office of the Civil Registrar on March 4. seek its annulment. par. before her demise is perfectly within the 10 year prescriptive period under Article 173 of the Civil Code. 1982. there is no dispute that Lot No. To be underscored here is that upon the provisions of Articles 161. in its entirety. The conjugal property is even subject to the payment of debts contracted by either spouse before the marriage. Vicente was married to Ignacia and that the latter did not give her conformity to the sale. 1982. 1986. "should have no exclusive property or if it should be insufficient. the husband could not alienate or encumber any conjugal real property without the consent. Even if we reckon the period from November 25. Ignacia’s action would still be within the prescribed period. Even assuming that respondent spouses believed in good faith that Ignacia really died on March 22. if it turns out that the spouse who is bound thereby. 4349-B-2 in its entirety. In the case at bar. intended to correct the absence of Ignacia’s consent to the sale. 3). The plain meaning attached to the plain language of the law is that the contract. there existed circumstances that should have placed respondent spouses on guard. 1983 sale which was filed on June 4. the conjugal partnership is liable for many obligations while the conjugal partnership exists. 4349-B-2. (2) The trial court correctly annulled the voidable sale of Lot No. is a conjugal property having been purchased using the conjugal funds of the spouses during the subsistence of their marriage. of the wife otherwise. as those for the payment of fines and indemnities imposed upon them after the responsibilities in Article 161 have been covered (Article 163. Respondent spouses cannot deny knowledge that at the time of the sale in 1978. the execution of another deed of sale in 1983 over the same Lot No." These are considerations that go beyond the mere equitable share of the wife in the property. the fact remains that the sale of Lot No. executed by the husband without the wife's consent. The same death certificate. during the marriage and within 10 years from the questioned transaction. especially so that respondent Florentina Mijares admitted on cross examination that she asked for the death certificate of Ignacia because she was suspicious that Ignacia was still alive. after they purchased the lot. Not only that. The death certificate of Ignacia. as well as the institution of the special proceedings were.Pursuant to the foregoing provisions. may be annulled by the wife. (3) Spouses Mijares are not purchasers in good faith. such limitation should have been spelled out in the statute. 1982. however. It is beyond cavil therefore that the sale of said lot to respondent spouses without the knowledge and consent of Ignacia is voidable. 1982. These obvious flaws in the death certificate should have prompted respondents to investigate further. 1978 which was the date when Vicente and the respondent spouses entered into a contract concerning Lot No. express or implied. 4349-B-2. reveals that – (1) it was issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar of Lubao Pampanga on March 10. Had Congress intended to limit such annulment in so far as the contract shall "prejudice" the wife. Her action to annul the March 1. shows that she died on March 22. after the alleged death of Ignacia on March 22. and (3) her burial or cremation would be on March 8. 162 and 163 of the Civil Code. In the instant case. This is consistent with Article 173 of the Civil Code pursuant to which the wife could. the contract is voidable. This is so because the 1978 "Agreement" described Vicente as "married" but the conformity of his wife to the sale did not appear in the deed. 1982. 4349-B-2 prior to Ignacia’s alleged demise was without her consent and . 4349-B-2. 1983 order authorizing the sale of the estate of Ignacia. The October 14. 1983 was never categorically approved in the said order. could not have validated the sale of Lot No. 4349-B-2 because said order was issued on the assumption that Ignacia was already dead and that the sale dated March 1.therefore subject to annulment. .
Report "Paragas vs Heirs of Balacano - Heirs of Reyes vs Mijares-2.docx"