Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 428 views

    Alamayri vs. Pabale

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous PaJRfRQ
    The case involved a disputed land sale between various parties. Nave originally entered an agreement to sell the land to Fernando but later refused. Fernando sued for specific performance. Nave claimed the land was already sold to the Pabale siblings. The court ruled that Nave was presumed competent to sell the land to the Pabales in 1984 despite a finding of incompetence in 1986, as her mental state could have changed, and the burden was on Alamayri challenging the sale to prove incapacity at the time of sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Alamayri vs. Pabale

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous PaJRfRQ
    428 views2 pages
    The case involved a disputed land sale between various parties. Nave originally entered an agreement to sell the land to Fernando but later refused. Fernando sued for specific performance. Nave claimed the land was already sold to the Pabale siblings. The court ruled that Nave was presumed competent to sell the land to the Pabales in 1984 despite a finding of incompetence in 1986, as her mental state could have changed, and the burden was on Alamayri challenging the sale to prove incapacity at the time of sale.

    Original Description:

    Alamayri vs. Pabale

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a disputed land sale between various parties. Nave originally entered an agreement to sell the land to Fernando but later refused. Fernando sued for specific performance. Nave claimed the land was already sold to the Pabale siblings. The court ruled that Nave was presumed competent to sell the land to the Pabales in 1984 despite a finding of incompetence in 1986, as her mental state could have changed, and the burden was on Alamayri challenging the sale to prove incapacity at the time of sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    428 views2 pages

    Alamayri vs. Pabale

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous PaJRfRQ
    The case involved a disputed land sale between various parties. Nave originally entered an agreement to sell the land to Fernando but later refused. Fernando sued for specific performance. Nave claimed the land was already sold to the Pabale siblings. The court ruled that Nave was presumed competent to sell the land to the Pabales in 1984 despite a finding of incompetence in 1986, as her mental state could have changed, and the burden was on Alamayri challenging the sale to prove incapacity at the time of sale.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ALAMAYRI VS.

    PABALE

    FACTS:

    A handwritten "Kasunduan Sa Pagbibilihan" (Contract to Sell) was


    entered into by and between Sesinando M Fernando (“Fernando”) and Nelly S.
    Nave (“Nave”) involving a piece of land in Calamba, Laguna. However, Nave
    reneged on their agreement when the latter refused to accept the partial down
    payment because she did not want to sell her property anymore. Thereafter,
    Fernando filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages before RTC
    Laguna. Nave filed a Motion to dismiss averring that she could not be ordered
    to execute the corresponding Deed of Sale in favor of Fernando because she
    repudiated the contract and besides she already sold the property in good faith
    to the Pabale siblings before she received a copy of the complaint.
    Subsequently, the Pabale siblings filed a Motion to Intervene alleging that they
    are now the land owners of the subject property. Unfortunately, the trial court
    denied Nave’s Motion to Dismiss.

    Unsatisfied, Nave and Atty. Vedasto Gesmundo filed another motion, this
    time including the fact of her incapacity to contract for being mentally deficient
    based on the psychological evaluation report conducted by Dra. Virginia P.
    Panlasigui, M. A., a clinical psychologist. Finding the motion unmeritorious,
    the same was denied by the court a quo. Temporarily, the proceedings in this
    case were suspended in view of the filing of a Petition for Guardianship of Nave
    with the RTC, Branch 36 of Calamba, Laguna with Atty. Gesmundo as the
    petitioner. Subsequently, a decision was rendered in the said guardianship
    proceedings, finding Nave an incompetent placing her and her estate under
    guardianship. Accordingly, Atty. Leonardo C. Paner (“Atty. Paner”) is appointed
    as her regular guardian without need of bond, until further orders from the
    Court.

    On December 9, 1992, Nave died. Upon her death, Atty. Vedasto


    Gesmundo, Nave’s sole heir, executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication
    pertaining to his inherited properties from Nave. In this connection, Atty.
    Gesmundo filed an issuance of a writ of execution of the petition for
    guardianship. The Pabale siblings filed their Opposition on the grounds that
    they were not made a party to the guardianship proceedings and thus cannot
    be bound by the Decision and that the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale was
    never raised in the guardianship case. Surprisingly, out of nowhere, Lolita R.
    Alamayri filed a motion for substitution alleging that the subject property was
    sold to her by Atty. Gesmundo. In his answer, Atty. Gesmundo refuted by
    stating that what he executed is a Deed of Donation and not a Deed of Absolute
    Sale and the same was already revoked. Subsequently, the trial court rendered
    its Decision recognizing Alamayri as the owner of the property. Fernando filed
    an appeal with the Court of Appeals. CA granted the appeal and upholds the
    VALIDITY of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Alamayri and Atty. Gesmundo sought
    reconsideration of the Decision of the appellate court but were denied for lack
    of merit. Hence, this petition.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Nave was an incompetent when she executed a Deed of Sale of
    the subject property in favor of the Pabale siblings rendering the said sale void.

    RULING:

    NO, Nave was not incompetent when she executed a Deed of Sale of the subject
    property in favor of the Pabale siblings.

    A finding that she was incompetent in 1986 does not automatically


    mean that she was so in 1984. Hence, the significance of the two-year gap
    herein cannot be gainsaid since Nave’s mental condition in 1986 may vastly
    differ from that of 1984 given the intervening period. Capacity to act is
    supposed to attach to a person who has not previously been declared
    incapable, and such capacity is presumed to continue so long as the contrary
    be not proved; that is, that at the moment of his acting he was incapable,
    crazy, insane, or out of his mind. The burden of proving incapacity to enter into
    contractual relations rests upon the person who alleges it; if no sufficient proof
    to this effect is presented, capacity will be presumed. Nave was examined and
    diagnosed by doctors to be mentally incapacitated only in 1986 and she was
    not judicially declared an incompetent until 22 June 1988 when a Decision in
    said case was rendered by the RTC, resulting in the appointment of Atty.
    Leonardo C. Paner as her guardian. Thus, prior to 1986, Nave is still
    presumed to be capacitated and competent to enter into contracts such
    as the Deed of Sale over the subject property, which she executed in
    favor of the Pabale siblings on 20 February 1984. The burden of proving
    otherwise falls upon Alamayri, which she dismally failed to do. Alamayri did
    not bother to establish with her own evidence that Nave was mentally
    incapacitated when she executed the Deed of Sale over the subject property in
    favor of the Pabale siblings, so as to render the said deed void.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy