Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    11 Mapalo Vs Mapalo

    Uploaded by

    Hans Christian Chavez
    The spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba were tricked into signing over their entire residential land to Miguel's brother Maximo, though they only intended to donate the eastern half. Maximo then sold the entire land to the Narcisos. The spouses Mapalo filed suit to have the sale of the western half nullified. The Court of Appeals ruled against the spouses, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding the sale was void from the beginning because the stated consideration of 500 pesos was never actually received by the spouses, so there was no true cause or consideration for the contract. A contract without consideration is permanently void and not subject to prescription.

    Copyright:

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

    11 Mapalo Vs Mapalo

    Uploaded by

    Hans Christian Chavez
    71 views2 pages
    The spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba were tricked into signing over their entire residential land to Miguel's brother Maximo, though they only intended to donate the eastern half. Maximo then sold the entire land to the Narcisos. The spouses Mapalo filed suit to have the sale of the western half nullified. The Court of Appeals ruled against the spouses, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding the sale was void from the beginning because the stated consideration of 500 pesos was never actually received by the spouses, so there was no true cause or consideration for the contract. A contract without consideration is permanently void and not subject to prescription.

    Original Description:

    Q

    Original Title

    11 Mapalo vs Mapalo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba were tricked into signing over their entire residential land to Miguel's brother Maximo, though they only intended to donate the eastern half. Maximo then sold the entire land to the Narcisos. The spouses Mapalo filed suit to have the sale of the western half nullified. The Court of Appeals ruled against the spouses, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding the sale was void from the beginning because the stated consideration of 500 pesos was never actually received by the spouses, so there was no true cause or consideration for the contract. A contract without consideration is permanently void and not subject to prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    71 views2 pages

    11 Mapalo Vs Mapalo

    Uploaded by

    Hans Christian Chavez
    The spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba were tricked into signing over their entire residential land to Miguel's brother Maximo, though they only intended to donate the eastern half. Maximo then sold the entire land to the Narcisos. The spouses Mapalo filed suit to have the sale of the western half nullified. The Court of Appeals ruled against the spouses, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding the sale was void from the beginning because the stated consideration of 500 pesos was never actually received by the spouses, so there was no true cause or consideration for the contract. A contract without consideration is permanently void and not subject to prescription.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966

    MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.,


    respondents.

    BENGZON, J.P., J.:

    FACTS:

    The spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba, simple illiterate farmers, were
    registered owners of a residential land in Manaoag, Pangasinan. They decided to
    donate the eastern half of the land to Miguel’s brother, Maximo Mapalo, out of love and
    affection. They were deceived, however, into signing a deed of absolute sale over the
    entire land in his favor. Their signatures thereto were procured by fraud and the stated
    consideration of Five Hundred (P500) Pesos was not received by the spouses.
    Believing it was of a donation, the spouses Mapalo immediately built a fence to divide
    the eastern portion from its western portion. The spouses continued possession over
    the western half of the land up to the present.

    Meanwhile, Maximo Mapalo, registered the deed of sale in his favor over the entire
    land. He sold the same in favor of Evaristo, Petronila Pacifico and Miguel, all surnamed
    Narciso, for P2,500. The sale was registered to their names. The Narcisos took
    possession only of the eastern portion of the land.

    On February 7, 1952, they filed suit in the CFI of Pangasinan to be declared owners of
    the entire land, for possession of its western portion, for damages, and rentals. It was
    brought against the spouses Mapalo, 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 own complaint against Narcisos and Maximo Mapalo.
    They seek for the nullity of the sale of the western half of said land on the grounds that
    the signatures to the deed of sale was procured by fraud and that the Narcisos were
    buyers in bad faith. They also seek for the reconveyance of the same to their names.
    The CFI of Pangasinan ruled in favor of spouses Mapalo.

    CA reversed the decision solely on the ground that the consent of the spouses Mapalo
    were obtained by fraud, thus the sale was voidable, not void ab initio. Therefore, the
    action to annul the same had long prescribed under the Old Civil Code. Hence, this
    petition.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the sale in favor of Maximo Mapalo was void for being absolutely
    simulated or fictitious.

    RULING:

    Yes. For a contract to exist at all, three essential requisites must concur: (1) consent, (2)
    object, and (3) cause or consideration.

    The CA is right that the element of consent is present. 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 second element of object is
    likewise present namely, the parcel of land subject matter of the same. Not so, however,
    as to the third element of cause or consideration.

    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. It stated that it had for its consideration P500. However, said consideration
    was totally absent. No donation by the Mapalo spouses was made with regard to the
    western portion of the land. Liberality as a cause or consideration did not exist in such
    sale.

    In that case, we ruled that 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. The inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable and
    cannot be the subject of prescription. (Art. 1410, New Civil Code).

    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