MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. vs.

MAXIMO MAPALO, AUTHOR: CHA

ET AL. [G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 ; May 19, 1966] NOTES:
TOPIC: When Price is false
PONENTE: Bengzon, J.P.
FACTS:
- Spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba, simple illiterate farmers, were registered owners, with OCT of a residential
land in Manaoag, Pangasinan. Out of love and affection for Maximo Mapalo, brother of Miguel who was about to get
married, they decided to donate the eastern half of the land to him.
- However, they were deceived into signing, on October 15, 1936, a deed of absolute sale over the entire land in his favor.
Their signatures were procured by fraud because they were made to believe by Maximo and by notary public who
"translated" the document, that the deed of donation in Maximo's favor covered (eastern half) of their land. Although the
document of sale stated a consideration of 500 Pesos, the spouses did not receive anything of value for the land.
- 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, which still exists and have always been in continued possession
over the western half of the land up to the present.
- However, without the knowledge of the spouses, Maximo, on March 15, 1938, registered the deed of sale in his favor and
obtained TCT over the entire land. 13 years later, he sold entire land in favor of the Narcisos, which was registered and
new TCT was issued for the whole land in their names. The Narcisos took possession only of the eastern portion of the
land in 1951, but 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, damages and for rentals.
- CFI: dismissed; only donation over the E. half portion was valid, TCT of the Narcisos on the W. half portion void.
- CA: CFI reversed; consent of the spouses were obtained by fraud, so voidable only, thus, action to annul is within 4 four
years from notice of the fraud, which is from the date of registration of the sale by Maximo. Thus, already prescribed.
ISSUE: WON the deed of sale of spouses to Maximo was void for being simulated or fictitious?
HELD: YES. CA reversed and set aside. CFI affirmed.
RATIO:
- As regards the E. portion of the land, spouses are not claiming it being their stand that they have donated and freely given
to Maximo Mapalo and since no appeal from the decision of the CFI, it was a valid and effective donation. However, as to
the W. portion, no donation by the Mapalo spouses obtained and liberality as a cause or consideration does not exist.
- The rule under the Civil Code, contracts without a cause or consideration produce no effect
whatsoever. Nonetheless, under the Old Civil Code, which governed the 1936 sale, the statement of a false
consideration renders the contract voidable, unless it is proven that it is supported by
another real and licit consideration. And it is further provided by the Old Civil Code that the action for annulment of a
contract on the ground of falsity of consideration shall last four years, the term to run from the date of the consummation
of the contract.
- The deed of sale of 1936 stated that it had for its consideration of 500 Pesos, but it was totally absent. 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. When in fact no consideration, the statement of one in the deed will
not suffice to bring it under the rule of Article 1276 of the Old Civil Code as stating a false consideration.
- The inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable and cannot be the subject of prescription. Justice
Bengzon, stated:
Under the existing classification, such contract would be "inexisting" and "the action or defense for
declaration" of such inexistence "does not prescribe". (Art. 1410, New Civil Code). While it is true that this is
a new provision of the New Civil Code, it is nevertheless a principle recognized since Tipton vs. Velasco, 6 Phil.
67 that "mere lapse of time cannot give efficacy to contracts that are null and void".
- The Narcisos were purchasers in bad faith, as found by CFI:
a.) undisputed testimony of Candida Quiba that Pacifico Narciso and Evaristo Narciso stayed for some days on the
western side until their house was removed in 1940 by the spouses Mapalo and Quiba;
b.) Pacifica Narciso admitted in his testimony that when they bought the property, Miguel was still in the premises in W.
part, which he is occupying and his house is still standing thereon;
c.) Pacifico Narciso when presented as witness categorically declared that before buying the land in question he went to
the house of spouses and asked them if they will permit their elder brother Maximo to sell the property.
- Futhermore, all the parties except Maximo are neighbors. Hence, deed of sale on the W. portion is null and void. Pursuant
to the bad faith of the Narcisos, attorneys' fees are also awarded.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):