FIRST DIVISION As gleaned from the record, the private parties are closely related.

Plaintiffs below, now the private respondents, are the aunts of

G.R. No. 83974. August 17, 1998 herein petitioner Dolores Rongavilla. Both spinsters, they earn
their livelihood as embroiderers ("magbuburda") and dressmakers;
although unschooled in English, they are however able to read and
SPOUSES NARCISO RONGAVILLA and DOLORES
write in Tagalog. Since they are of advanced age (Mercedes de la
RONGAVILLA, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND
Cruz, 60 and Florencia de la Cruz, 71), their day to day activities
MERCEDES DELA CRUZ AND FLORENCIA DELA
were confined mostly close to home.
CRUZ, Respondents.

The property subject of this controversy between kith and kin is a

DECISION
parcel of land, located in Manuyo, Las Pias, Rizal (now Metro
Manila) owned by private respondents, in the proportion of one-
QUISUMBING, J.: half (1/2) pro-indiviso, with another niece named Juanita Jimenez
as co-owner of the other one-half. The whole parcel consisted of
For review on appeal by certiorari are the Decision1 of the Court of 131 square meters and was covered by Original Certificate of Title
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 06543, promulgated on March 11, (OCT) No. 5415 of the Register of Deeds of the Province of Rizal.
1988, and the Resolution2 dated June 28, 1988, denying This OCT, as well as the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. S-
petitioner's motion for reconsideration. 28903 after the parcel was subdivided, was kept in the possession
of Juanita Jimenez, who is the elder sister of Dolores Rongavilla.
The appealed decision affirmed in toto the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in Civil Case No. LP-8790-P, Although the basic fact situation here might appear all too familiar,
which disposed of the controversy as follows: the legal controversy itself is notable for having passed through
the entire channel of the justice system.4 The present petition
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring void and before us was given due course per Resolution5 dated June 26,
inexistent the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. "I") dated June 3, 1976 1989; but it was denied on September 20, 1989, for non-
allegedly executed by plaintiffs in favor of defendant spouses, compliance with certain requirements;6 although, upon motion for
which document is now particulary identified as Doc, No. 164; reconsideration by the petitioners showing compliance, it was
Page no. 34; Book No. I; Series of 1976 in the Notarial Register of reinstated7 on September 2, 1991.
Arcadio Espiritu, a Notary Public for and in Province of Cavite.
Further, defendant spouses are hereby ordered - Considering the circumstances in this case, including the
relationship of the parties, it behooves this Court now to examine
a. To reconvey to the plaintiffs, free from all liens and closely and carefully the questioned judgment and the record
encumbrances, the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title below. For the Court could not but be mindful of the codal
No. S-28903 of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Rizal; admonition that:

b. . To pay to plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; "In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the
and parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age, or other
handicap, the courts must vigilant for his protection." (Art. 24,
c. To pay the cost of the suit."3cräläwvirtualibräry Civil Code)
From the facts found below, it appears that in the month of May, prejudice of the plaintiffs. They also claimed moral and exemplary
1976, the private respondents borrowed the amount of two damages, as the court might determine.
thousand (P2,000) from the petitioners for the purpose of having
their (respondents') dilapidated rooftop repaired. Petitioners duly filed their answer9 after the denial of their motion
to dismiss, alleging that plaintiffs (now the private respondents)
A month later, petitioner Dolores Rongavilla and her sister Juanita sold their parcel of land voluntarily, that there was consent to the
Jimenez visited their aunt's home, bringing with them a document deed of sale, that there was sufficient consideration therefor and
for the signature of their aunts. The document is admittedly that the document on the sale was complete in itself and in due
typewritten in English. When asked in Tagalog by one of the aunts, form, enabling the Register of deeds to cancel their old TCT and
respondent Mercedes de la Cruz, what the paper was all about, issue a new one. Petitioners further stated that private respondent
Dolores Rongavilla answered also in Tagalog, that it was just a were fully appraised by the Notary Public, Atty. Arcadio G. Espiritu,
document to show that the private respondents had a debt on what the document was all about, and having understood the
amounting to P2,000. On account of that representation, private explanation made by said Notary Public, they voluntarily affixed
respondent signed the document. their signatures on said document. Petitioners also asserted as
affirmative and/or special defenses that prescription had set in and
In September 1980, or after a lapse of over four years, petitioner that private respondents no longer had a cause of action, and that
Dolores Rongavilla went to private respondents' place and asked the deed of sale contained all the pre-requisites of a contract,
them to vacate the parcel in question, claiming that she and her namely consent of the parties, consideration or a price certain, and
husband were already the new owners of the land. determinate thing or object; and could no longer be annulled. They
also claimed moral and exemplary damages.
Surprised by petitioners' moves, private respondents with the help
of friends went to the Office of the Register of Deeds of the The trial court's judgment, quoted at the outset, being adverse to
Province of Rizal to verify the matter. They discovered that their the petitioners, they seasonably appealed. And after their rebuff at
Certificate of Title had been cancelled and a new one, Transfer the appellate level, they come now to this Court
Certificate of Title No. S-28903, had been issued in favor of on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, citing the
petitioners. They further discovered that said parcel of land had following grounds for their petition:
been mortgaged with the Cavite Development Bank by the
petitioners. It was only then that the private respondents realized "(1) It is clear and patent error of the Court of Appeals to declare
that the document they had previously been asked by their nieces as 'void and inexistent the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exhibit 1) dated
to sign was a deed of sale. June 3, 1976.

On February 3, 1981, private respondents filed with the Court of (2) The Court of Appeals committed grave error of law in holding
First Instance, now Regional Trial Court, of Pasay City the sworn that the action to declare nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale
complaint8 to have the purported deed of sale declared void and (Exhibit 1) does not prescribe.
inexistent, for being fictitious and simulated, and secured by
means of fraud and misrepresentation. They alleged that they did (3) The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in
not sell their property in question to the defendants; that they did relying on a purported Certificate of Bureau of Internal Revenue
not receive any consideration on the supposed sale; that their which was not offered in evidence.
Original Certificate of Title was cancelled and TCT No. S-28903 was
issued in favor of defendants (herein petitioners), who thereafter
(4) The Court of Appeals committed grave error of law and abuse
mortgaged said title for a total of P40,000.00 to the damage and
of discretion and grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in ordering the petitioners to reconvey the Notary Public who prepared the deed of sale. They also
subject parcel of land to the private vehemently denied receiving any consideration for the alleged
respondents."10cräläwvirtualibräry sale. They added that their signatures on the purported deed of
sale were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation as petitioners
With a slight variation but consistent with the grounds they have had misled them to believe the document was just a paper to
relied on petitioners raise in their Memorandum11 the following: evidence a debt of P2,000 they obtained to buy G.I sheets for the
repair of their leaking roof.12 Private respondents were shocked
and got sick when they were told by petitioners that they
"ISSUES
(respondents) were no longer the owners of the
land.13cräläwvirtualibräry
1. Did the Court of Appeals commit a clear and patent
error in declaring as 'void and inexistent' the Deed of
On these two points of consent and consideration, the trial court
Absolute Sale (Exhibit 1) dated June 3, 1976?
found that:

2. Did the Court of Appeals commit grave error in holding

"x x x. A careful analysis and meticulous evaluation of the
that the action to annul the Deed of Sale (Exhibit 1) does
evidence on record has convinced the Court that the sale of their
not prescribe?
property to the defendants was farthest from the plaintiffs' minds.
The Court believes that when plaintiffs voluntarily signed the
3. Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of document which turned out to be a deed of sale, they were misled
discretion in relying on a purported Certificate of the by defendant Dolores Rongavilla and her sister Juanita Jimenez
Bureau of Internal Revenue which was not offered in into believing that what they signed was a document
evidence? acknowledging the loan of P2,000.00 extended them by said
defendant.
4. Did the Court of Appeals commit grave error of law and
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction "The Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. "l") mentions a consideration
or in excess of jurisdiction in ordering petitioners to of P2,000.00. Three years after the alleged sale, the same
reconvey the subject parcel of land to the private property was mortgaged by defendant spouses with the Cavite
respondents?" Development Bank for P40,000.00. Clearly enough, the gross
inadequacy and unconsciounableness [sic] of the consideration
These issues may be synthesized into one: Did the respondent deters the Court from subscribing to defendants' theory that
Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it upheld the trial plaintiffs sold the property to them. It is more reasonable to
court's judgment that the disputed Deed of Sale (Exhibit "1") is assume that the amount of P2,000.00 mentioned in the deed
void and inexistent? refers to the loan defendants extended to plaintiffs for the same
amount.
To resolve this pivotal issue, it must be noted that private
respondents, as plaintiffs below, based their complaint to declare "Plaintiffs are now of advanced age. Their only property is the lot
the disputed deed void and inexistent on two fundamental in question and the house erected thereon. x x x.
grounds: (1) lack of consent and (2) want of consideration. Under
oath, they strongly denied selling or even just agreeing to sell, "As there is no indication that plaintiffs were in dire need of
their parcel of land to their niece and nephew-in-law. During the money, except for few [sic] amount, except for few [sic] amount
hearing, they also denied going to and appearing before the necessary for the repair of the roof of their house for which they
obtained a loan of P2,000.00 from defendants, there was no deed is valid; and that because of the statute of limitations, after
reason for plaintiffs to dispose of their property. To do so would be the lapse of four years from its execution and registration, it could
inconsistent with the regular norm of human conduct and the no longer be annulled.
natural course of events. It is not in accord with the natural
promptings and instincts of human nature."14cräläwvirtualibräry They assert that "the presumption that contracts are presumed to
be valid and to be supported by lawful and good consideration of
To these findings by thetrial court, the Court of Appelas in its own one dollar is just as effectual and valuable as a larger sum
decision asserted. In addition, it laid stress on the point of lack of stipulated or paid''.17cräläwvirtualibräry
consideration by quoting agreeably the trial judge's holding
thereon: They further assert that since private respondents signed the Deed
of Sale, as a public instrument, the truth of the recitals therein
"By more than mere preponderance of evidence of evidence embodied could only be impugned and disproved, not by mere
plaintiffs [herein private respondents] have established the merit preponderance of evidence, but by evidence of the "the clearest
of their cause of action. The Court is of the opinion and so holds and most satisfactory character, convincing and
that there was fraud exercised by defendant Dolores Rongavilla overwhelming.'"18 Petitioners further state that since they have
and her sister Juanita Jimenez in securing the signature of the been the ones paying real estate taxes on the property, rather
Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. 'l') and there was no consideration than their aunts, the latter by their acts had confirmed the deed
whatsoever dor the alleged sale. Undoubtedly, the said deed of executed by them.19cräläwvirtualibräry
sale is simulated, fictitious and void."15cräläwvirtualibräry
Despite the petitioners' insistence that the deed of sale is
And before concluding, the appellate court reiterated the proper presumed valid and, being registered, could not be disturbed
characterization of the deed of sale in question, not as an anymore, we however find their arguments and ratiocination less
annullable contract, but as a void and inexistent contract as found than persuasive. While petitioners would not want the deed of sale
by the trial court: to be impugned, they themselves contradict the recitals therein.
On the vital point of consideration, they and their witnesses,
"x x x. In the case at bar, however, We are dealing not merely namely Juanita Jimenez and Atty. Arcadio Espiritu repeatedly
with a voidable contract which is tainted with fraud, mistake, declared that the true consideration paid for the sale of the land
undue influence, violence or intimidation which may justify the was not P2,000 as stated in their own Exhibit "l", the Deed of Sale,
annulment of a contract, but with a contract that is null and but in fact P7,800.00.20cräläwvirtualibräry
void ab initio.
Petitioner Dolores Rongavilla herself on cross-examination testified
"In the present case, plaintiffs-appellees declared under oath in as follows:
their complaint that they signed the alleged document without
knowing that said document was a deed of absolute sale. This "Atty. Rodriguez:
means that plaintiffs-appelles consent was not only vitiated, but
that plaintiffs-appealles have not give their consent at all. And Q. You stated that you were present when this was explained by
since there was no consent, the deed of absolute sale is, therefore, the notary public, how did the notary public explain this deed of
null and void ab initio. xxx'"16cräläwvirtualibräry sale in English or Tagalog?

Dissatisfied, petitioners now seek from this Court the reversal of

the judgment below. They insist in their petition before us that the
A. It was explained by the notary public that the property is being If as petitioners claimed on trial, the price paid was P7,800 while
sold by them to us and that the consideration was only P2,000.00 their deed showed only P2,000, after the amount of P3,000 in the
as appearing in the document in order that we may be able to deed was altered, one may well inquire: which figure could this
save for the payment of taxes and documentary stamps. Court believe? Could one say that the trial and the appellate courts
both erred in holding that no consideration passed from the buyer
Q. Did the plaintiffs not say anything when the notary public to the seller?
according to you explained that instead of P7,800.00, P2,000.00
will be stated in the document? But petitioners herein would further take to task the appellate
court for grave abuse of discretion, as well as for a reversible
A. They did not say anything because we gave to them the amount error, in having relied on the "purported Certification of the Bureau
of the consideration agreed between us the sum of P7,800.00. of Internal Revenue which was not offered in evidence". Since this
(t.s.n., Sept. 2, 1982, pp. 9-10)"21cräläwvirtualibräry is a petition under Rule 45, however, we will not dwell on the
alleged grave abuse of discretion but limit our observation to the
alleged error of law. The BIR certificate was the subject of the
By their own testimony, the petitioners are pictured as not exactly
testimony of witnesses at the hearing where both parties took full
averse to bending the truth, particularly the purported
advantage of the opportunity for direct and cross-examination as
consideration. Sadly, the irony of it is that while they claimed they
well as rebuttal and sur-rebuttal.24 On the witness stand, private
were regulary paying taxes on the land in question they had no
respondents as plaintiffs below denied that they had any tax
second thoughts stating at the trial and later on appeal that they
account number nor even residence certificates. They were
had resorted to doctoring the price stated in the disputed Deed of
supported by their witnesses, testifying also under oath. They
Sale, allegedly "to save on taxes". That admission surely opens the
contradicted the claim of the petitioners' lawyer-notary public, that
door to questions on the integrity, genuineness and veracity of
the disputed deed of sale was complete and in due form and was
said public instrument.
signed in his presence by the private respondents. They further
denied even having gone to the office of the lawyer-notary public
Thus, the trial court could not be said to err in asserting that in Bacoor, Cavite, on June 3, 1976, the date of execution shown in
"while it is true that public documents are presumed genuine and the deed, or on any other date. While indeed the BIR certificate
regular under the provisions of the Rules of Court, this was not formally offered in evidence, hence no longer available on
presumption is a rebuttable presumption which may be overcome review, the record would show that said BIR certificate was
by clear, strong and convincing evidence."22cräläwvirtualibräry presented during the testimony on rebuttal of respondent
Mercedes de la Cruz:25cräläwvirtualibräry
Moreover, Exhibit "l", the deed itself, shows that contrary to the
testimony of the notary public, who appeared as a witness for "ATTY. RODRIGUEZ:
petitioners, what was originally typed therein was the amount of
"Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000)", which later on was substituted
According to the defendants, there was the alleged deed of sale
by the handwritten amount now of Two Thousand Pesos
executed by you and your sister in favor of the defendants before
(P2,000)."23 There is no need to speculate on the motivation for
Notary Public Arcadio G. Espiritu. It appears you have presented
this alteration. The notary public might have just wanted to further
Tax Account No. (TAN) 2345-463-6 and your sister Florencia de la
save on taxes, rather than short-change the coffers of the
Cruz also presented Tax Account No. (TAN) 2345-468-4. Now, do
government. But, again, the whole fabric of petitioners' claim to
you have any tax account number?
the sanctity of the deed as public instrument had thereby been
shredded.
WITNESS:
None, sir.26 obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation of [her nephew]
Jaime Rivero that the contract she was signing was one of
xxx mortgage."

ATTY. RODRIGUEZ: "The land in question is located in the municipality of Polo,

Bulacan, very near Manila. It has an area of 2 hectares, 32 ares
and 45 centares. The consideration for the sale of said land is
I am showing to you this certification from the "Kawanihan ng
only P5,000.00 which is not only grossly inadequate but shocking
Rentas, Quezon City , dated June 16, 1982, addressed to Miss
to the conscience x x x"29cräläwvirtualibräry
Florencia de la Cruz and Miss Mercedes de la Cruz, Las Pias, Metro-
Manila, issued by the accounting chief, stating that in reply to
you[r] request dated June 14, 1982, requesting certification of In Ocejo, Perez & Co. vs. Flores, 40 Phil. 921 (1920), regarding
your TAN, the records of their office do not show that you were the sale of land in Tayabas, Quezon, the Court confronted a similar
issued any tax account number, what relation has this document question:
which for purposes of identification, we respectfully request that
the same be marked Exhibit "C" to the certification issued by the "The first question presented is whether the contract of sale
BIR? executed by Isabel Flores in favor of Joaquin Bas is valid or not.

WITNESS: "By relying upon the documents executed in his favor by Isabel
Flores evidencing the contract of sale, Joaquin Bas insists that
"Yes, this is the one."27cräläwvirtualibräry there has been a perfect and valid contract of sale of real estate
between them and that he paid to her the consideration
of P20,000 mentioned in said documents. x x x.
Now even if the matter of the official certification by the BIR is set
aside, the whole question of the TAN being fake or belonging to
somebody else, would boil down to one of credibility between the "Isabel Flores, on the other hand, maintained that there was
two camps. Unfortunately for the petitioners herein, the trial court neither a real sale nor did she receive a centavo from the
found them and their witnesses far from credible. As remarked by defendant, as the price of said sale, x x x."30cräläwvirtualibräry
the trial Judge, "the declarations of defendants [herein petitioners]
do not inspire rational belief."28 It would thus appear that the trial Concluded the Court, after reviewing the series of transactions on
court and the appellate court committed no grave error of law, record:
that would impel us on this point to override their judgment.
"It is then evident that the contract of sale mentioned in the
Neither can we give assent to the assertion of petitioners that the notarial document of May 7, 1915, lacks cause
appealed Court of Appeals (CA) decision here as well as the or consideration and is therefore null and void and without any
judgment below is "contrary to settled jurisprudence". This Court effect whatsoever according to Article 1275 of the Civil Code, for it
in Rivero v. Court of Appeals, 80 SCRA 411 (1977) had occasion has been satisfactorily and conclusively proven that the purchaser
already to affirm a trial court's judgment declaring null and void Joaquin Bas has not paid Isabel Flores for the price of the lands
the questioned deed of sale where it found: that the latter has sold to him, and after being contented with
having for a long time given several promises showing that he had
"The undisputed facts of record support the finding of the trial no intention to comply with his contract, he concluded by
court that the consent of Ana Concepcion to the deed of sale was executing four promissory notes payable to the vendor, which
recite the aforementioned purchase price and which were not also intend to be bound at all;" that no circumstance was alleged to
paid, there appearing in the record facts from which it can be sustain the contention "that the execution of the aforesaid
inferred that fraud has been committed."31cräläwvirtualibräry document is contrary to public policy;"36 and that for 27 years the
petitioners did not even care to verify the status of the land in
This Court in Mapalo v. Mapalo, 17 SCRA 114 (1966) stated: question. "Their inaction for such a considerable period of time
reflects on the credibility of their pretense that they merely
intended to confirm an oral mortgage, instead of sale of the land in
"The rule under the Civil Code, again be it the old or the new, is
question."37chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
that contracts without a cause or consideration produce no effect
whatsoever."32cräläwvirtualibräry
Here in the present case, there is no doubt about the credibility of
plaintiffs below (herein private respondents) in pursuing their
The "problem" before the Court "is whether a deed which states a
cause promptly and forcefully. They never intended to sell, nor
consideration that in fact did not exist, is a contract, without
acceded to be bound by the sale of their land. Public policy is also
consideration, and therefore void ab initio, or a contract with a
well served in defending the rights of the aged to legal protection,
false consideration, and therefore, at least under the Old Civil
including their right to property that is their home, as against
Code, voidable." This problem arose, as observed by the Court,
fraud, misrepresentation, chicanery and abuse of trust and
because the questioned "deed of sale" between the brothers
confidence by those who owed them candor and respect.
Magpalo, in 1936, stated that it had for its consideration Five
Hundred (P500.00) Pesos. In fact, however, said "consideration
was totally absent."33cräläwvirtualibräry More to the point, in our view, is Baranda v. Baranda, 150 SCRA
59 (1987), where this Court found that:
Thus, the Court concluded:
"This Civil Code provides in Article 1391 that an action to annul a
contract on the ground of vitiated consent must be filed within four
"In our view, therefore, the ruling of this Court in Ocejo, Perez &
years from the discovery of the vice of consent. In the instant
Co. vs. Flores, 40 Phil. 921 is squarely applicable herein. In that
case, however, we are dealing not with a voidable contract tainted
case we ruled that a contract of purchase and sale is null and null
with fraud, mistake, undue influence, violence or intimidation that
and void and produces no effect whatsoever where the same
can justify its nullification, but with a contract that is null and
is without cause or consideration in that the purchase price which
void ab initio
appears thereon as paid has in fact never been paid by the
puchaser to vendor."34cräläwvirtualibräry
"Paulina Baranda declared under oath in her complaint that she
signed the deeds of sale without knowing what they were, which
Turning now to the issue of prescription, it follows that once the
means that her consent was not merely marred by the above-
disputed deed is found to be inexistent and void, the statute of
stated vices, so as to make the contracts voidable, but that she
limitations cannot apply. As the courts below ruled, the cause of
had not given her consent at all. We are also satisfied that there
action for its declaration as such is imprescriptible.35 Petitioners-
was no valid consideration either for the alleged transfers, for
spouses contend, however, that this is contrary to settled
reasons already discussed. Lack of consent and consideration
jurisprudence because the applicable precedent should be Pangadil
made the deeds of sale void altogether38and rendered them
v. CFI of Cotabato, 116 SCRA 347 (1982). But the fact situation of
subject to attack at any time, conformably to the rule in Article
that case differs radically from the present controversy. There the
1410 that an action to declare the inexistence of void contracts
Court upheld the dismissal of the action to declare a document
'does not prescribe'."39cräläwvirtualibräry
known as "Ratificacion de Una Venta" as inexistent and void after
finding that it was "not a contract wherein the parties do not
And if the passage of time could not cure the fatal flaw in the
inexistent and void contract, neither could an alleged ratification or
confirmation thereof. Further, as in the case before us,
reconveyance is proper. "The defect of inexistence of a contract is
permanent and incurable, hence it cannot be cured either by
ratification or by prescription. x x x There is no need of an action
to set aside a void or inexistent contract; in fact such action
cannot logically exist. However, an action to declare the non-
existence of the contract can be maintained; and in the same
action, the plaintiff may recover what he has given by virtue of the
contract."40cräläwvirtualibräry

Given the circumstances of the case and there being no reversible

error in the challenged decision, we are in accord with the
judgment below and find the petitioners' appeal without merit. For
as well said in the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution under
review, "We cannot contemplate of the rather absurd situation,
which defendants-appellants would ineluctably lead [u]s to, where
plaintiffs-appellees would sell their only house, in which they have
lived for so many years, in order to secure the measly sum
of P2,000.00 to repair the roof of their only house, which would all
be lost to them anyway upon the consummation of the sale. They
would then become homeless, and the repaired roof would be of
no use to them."41 Experience which is the life of the law -- as well
as logic and common sense -- militates against the petitioners'
cause.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision

and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
06543 are hereby AFFIRMED.

Cost against petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Davide , Jr. (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug and

Panganiban, JJ., concur.