Mapalo VS Mapalo

Doctrine: Contracts without cause or consideration produce no
effect whatsoever.
The inexistence of a contract is permanent and
incurable and cannot be the subject of prescription.
Facts:
The spouses Miguel Mapalo were registered owners
of a 1,635-square-meter land Pangasinan.
Spouses-owners decided to donate the eastern half of the land to Maximo

Mapalo (Miguel’s brother). O.C.T. was delivered.
As a result, however, they were deceived into signing a deed of absolute

sale over the entire land in his favor (Maximo Mapalo).
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 registered the deed of sale in his favor and obtained in his
name the title over the entire land.
13 years later on , MAXIMO sold for P2,500.00 said entire land in favour the Narciso family. The sale to the
Narcisos was in turn registered in their names. (Maximo  Narciso)
The Narcisos took possession only of the eastern portion of the land in 1951, after the sale in their favor was
made.
On February 1952 Narciso 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, 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 in the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan 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.
Held:
Starting with fundamentals, under the Civil Code,
either the old or the new, for a contract to exist at all, three
essential requisites must concur: (1) consent, (2) object, and
(3) cause or consideration.1 The Court of Appeals is right in
that the element of consent is present as to the deed of sale
of October 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. And on this point the decision of the Court of
Appeals is silent.
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
2-SANCHEZ ROMAN | BALGOA, Patricia Nicole | CANDOLITA, Therese Ann | CHIU, Ronald | DAYANGHIRANG
IV, Emilio | DULAY, Francis Roel |
ESTILLORE, Lizette Kaye | MANGADLAO, Jessa | MASANGUID, Remmon Lloyd | PUBLICO, Stephanie | SABRIDO,
Julian Rey | SINGANON, Alexa |
TITO, Carra Trisha 2 of 90
LAW ON SALES | Atty. Jazzie Sarona-Lozare, CPA Ateneo de Davao University – College of Law | 1st Sem (2016-2017)
not exist as regards the western portion of the land; that
there was no donation with respect to the same.
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. The problem, therefore,
is 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,
Needless to add, the inexistence of a contract is
permanent and incurable and cannot be the subject of
prescription.
The RTC cannot also give weight and credit on this
theory of the Narcisos being buyers in good faith on the
following reasons: Firstly, it has been positively shown by the
undisputed testimony of Candida Quiba that Pacifico Narciso
and Evaristo Narciso stayed for some days on the western side
(the portion in question) of the above-described land until
their house was removed in 1940 by the spouses Mapalo and
Quiba; secondly, Pacifica Narciso admitted in his testimony in
chief that when they bought the property, Miguel Mapalo was
still in the premises in question (western part) which he is
occupying and his house is still standing thereon; and thirdly,
said Pacifico Narciso when presented as a rebuttal and subrebuttal
witness categorically declared that before buying the
land in question he went to the house of Miguel Mapalo and
Candida Quiba and asked them if they will permit their elder
brother Maximo to sell the property.
Aside from the fact that all the parties in these cases
are neighbors, except Maximo Mapalo the foregoing facts are
explicit enough and sufficiently reveal that the Narcisos were
aware of the nature and extent of the interest of Maximo
Mapalo their vendor, over the above-described land before
and at the time the deed of sale in their favor was executed.
Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
reversed and set aside, and another one is hereby rendered
affirming in toto the judgment of the Court of First Instance a
quo, with attorney's fees on appeal in favor of appellants in
the amount of P1,000.00, plus the costs, both against the
private appellees. So ordered.

Mapalo VS Mapalo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapalo VS Mapalo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mapalo VS Mapalo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine: Contracts without cause or consideration produce no

Spouses-owners decided to donate the eastern half of the land to Maximo

As a result, however, they were deceived into signing a deed of absolute

You might also like

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