Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 196 views

    18 Leonardo Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Xylem Salvatore
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled to annul an extrajudicial settlement of an estate on the grounds of mistake. [1] Restituta Leonardo, who could only read in a local dialect and had a third grade education, was pressured into signing the settlement agreement written in English without having it fully explained to her. [2] As the terms were not properly explained and Restituta did not understand them due to limitations of literacy and education, her consent was invalidated by substantial mistake. [3] The Court held the settlement agreement to be voidable and ordered it to be annulled and set aside.

    Copyright:

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

    18 Leonardo Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Xylem Salvatore
    196 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled to annul an extrajudicial settlement of an estate on the grounds of mistake. [1] Restituta Leonardo, who could only read in a local dialect and had a third grade education, was pressured into signing the settlement agreement written in English without having it fully explained to her. [2] As the terms were not properly explained and Restituta did not understand them due to limitations of literacy and education, her consent was invalidated by substantial mistake. [3] The Court held the settlement agreement to be voidable and ordered it to be annulled and set aside.

    Original Title

    18 Leonardo vs CA Digest

    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 Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled to annul an extrajudicial settlement of an estate on the grounds of mistake. [1] Restituta Leonardo, who could only read in a local dialect and had a third grade education, was pressured into signing the settlement agreement written in English without having it fully explained to her. [2] As the terms were not properly explained and Restituta did not understand them due to limitations of literacy and education, her consent was invalidated by substantial mistake. [3] The Court held the settlement agreement to be voidable and ordered it to be annulled and set aside.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    196 views1 page

    18 Leonardo Vs CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Xylem Salvatore
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled to annul an extrajudicial settlement of an estate on the grounds of mistake. [1] Restituta Leonardo, who could only read in a local dialect and had a third grade education, was pressured into signing the settlement agreement written in English without having it fully explained to her. [2] As the terms were not properly explained and Restituta did not understand them due to limitations of literacy and education, her consent was invalidated by substantial mistake. [3] The Court held the settlement agreement to be voidable and ordered it to be annulled and set aside.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Camilla Galang

    18. Leonardo vs. CA To determine whether or not there was mistake, courts must consider objective
    438 SCRA 210 and subjective aspects of the case with respect to the intellectual capacity of the
    September 13, 2004 one who supposedly made the mistake. Mistake, to invalidate consent, should be
    in reference to the very object of the contract, or to principal conditions which
    Facts motivated the parties to execute the contract.

    Restituta Leonardo is an only legitimate child of late sps. Tomasina Paul and Art. 1332 of the Civil Code provides that when one of the parties is unable to read
    Balbino Leonardo. Teodoro, Victor, Corazon, Piedad, Eduvigis and Dominador or the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is
    Sebastian are the illegitimate children of Tomasina, after she separated in fact (no alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof were
    legal separation or annulment of marriage) from her husband. Restituta is filing an fully explained to the former. This provision protects people who enter into
    action to declare the nullity of an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of contracts but are severely limited by illiteracy, ignorance, mental weakness, etc.
    Tomasina.
    Contracts made with defective consent show defect of the will on the part of that
    One day, Corazon went to the house of Restituta to get her to sign an extrajudicial party to enter the contract, affecting one’s freedom, intelligence, and spontaneity.
    settlement of the estate of Tomasina, which was written in English. Restituta
    wanted her husband to come so he could go over it, because she could only read However in invoking Art. 1332, which creates a presumption of mistake or error
    Pangasinan dialect and only finished Grade 3, so she might not understand the in these particular cases, such presumption may be rebutted by evidence. In the
    terms. Corazon persuaded her by saying that Restituta’s share in the estate was case at hand however, there is no evidence that the terms of the contract were
    properly provided for. Restituta signed the document. Corazon left before properly explained, so the defense of rebutting the presumption was not
    Restituta’s husband arrived, and did not leave a copy of the contract. discharged. As such, the consent of petitioner was invalidated by substantial
    mistake, rendering the agreement voidable. The extrajudicial partition should
    The RTC ruled that duress or fraud was not established and that nullification of therefore be annulled.
    the contract was not the answer, but reformation. The CA affirmed the decision.
    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated 23 May 1996 is hereby
    Issue REVERSED. The extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Tomasina Paul and Jose
    Sebastian is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. No cost.
    The sole issue is whether the consent given by the petitioner to the extrajudicial
    settlement was given voluntarily?

    Held

    No, it was not. The extrajudicial settlement must be annulled.

    The essence of consent is the agreement of the parties on the terms of the contract,
    the acceptance by one of the offer made by the other. It is the concurrence of the
    minds of the parties on the object and the cause which constitutes the contract.9
    The area of agreement must extend to all points that the parties deem material or
    there is no consent at all.

    Consent to be valid must meet the ff. requsiites: it must be made intelligently,
    freely, spontaneously. Intelligence is vitiated by error; freedom, by violence,
    intimidation, or undue influence; spontaneity, by fraud.

    You might also like