SPOUSES RONGAVILLA V.

COURT OF APPEALS & MERCEDES &

FLORENCIA DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 83974 August 17, 1998

DOCTRINE & LAWS:

- Once the disputed deed is found to be inexistent and void, the statute of limitations cannot
apply. Also, the defect of inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable, hence it
cannot be cured either by ratification or by prescription. There is no need of an action to
set aside a void or inexistent contract; in fact such action cannot logically exist.

RECIT READY: (taken from the uploaded case)

Private respondents Mercedes dela Cruz and Florencia dela Cruz are the aunts of herein
petitioner Dolores Rongavilla. Both respondets are of advanced age, 60 and 71 respectively;
unmarried women, earning their livelihood as embroiderers and dressmakers and although
unschooled in English, they are able to read and write in Tagalog. In the month of May 1976,
Dela Cruz borrowed the amount of two thousand pesos (P2,000) from the Spouses Rongavilla
for the purpose of having their dilapidated rooftop repaired. A month later, petitioner Dolores
Rongavilla and her sister Juanita Jimenez visited Dela Cruz's home bringing with them a
document for the latter's signature. The document was typewritten in English. Mercedes asked
Dolores in Tagalog what the document was all about, and Dolores answered also in Tagalog,
that it was just a document to show that the Dela Cruz had a debt amounting to P2,000.
Because of that representation, private respondents signed the document. After the lapse of
over four years, Dolores went to Rongavillas place and asked them to vacate the parcel in
question, claiming that she and her husband were already the new owners of the land. Dela
Cruz filed with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City a complaint to have the purported deed of
sale declared void and inexistent, for being fictitious, simulated, and secured by means of
fraud and misrepresentation. The trial court declared void and inexistent the Deed of Absolute
Sale. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. Spouses Rongavilla now
contend that the appellate court committed reversible error when it upheld the trial court's
judgment that the disputed Deed of Sale is void and inexistent. TADaES

The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the decision of the appellate court declaring
the subject Deed of Sale null and void. The Court found the testimonies of petitioners'
witnesses on the vital point of consideration incredible and their admission that they had
resorted to doctoring the price stated in the Deed of Sale, allegedly "to save on taxes" highly
suspicious. Said admission surely opens the door to questions on the integrity, genuineness
and veracity of said public instrument.

DETAILED DIGEST:

Petitioner- Spouses Rongavilla

Respondent- Mercedez and Florencia Dela Cruz

FACTS:

- The private respondents are aunts of herein petitioner Dolores Rongavilla. Both spinsters
(respondents), they earn their livelihood as embroiderers and dressmakers; although
unschooled in English they are however able to read and write in Tagalog. The property
subject of this controversy between kith and kin is a parcel of land, located in Manuyo, Las
Pias, Rizal owned by respondents. The OCT and TCT of the land was kept in possession of
Juanita Jimenez who is the elder sister of Dolores Rongavilla.
- On 1976, respondents borrowed P2,000 from petitioners for the repair of the formers
dilapidated rooftop. A month later, petitioner and her sister Juanita went to respondents
home, bringing with them a document for the signature of their aunts. The document is
admittedly typewritten in English. When asked in Tagalog by one of the aunts what the
paper was all about, Dolores Rongavilla answered also in Tagalog, that it was just a
document to show that the respondents had a debt amounting to P2,000. On account of
that representation, they signed the document.

- After 4 years, petitioner Dolores Rongavilla went to private respondents' place and asked
them to vacate the parcel in question, claiming that she and her husband were already the
new owners of the land. Respondents went to the register of deeds to verify this and they
learned that the old TCT was cancelled and a new one was issued in favor of petitioners.
They learned that he document they had previously been asked by their nieces to sign was
a deed of sale.

- CFI- declared the deed of sales as void and inexistent for being fictitious and simulated,
and secured by means of fraud and misrepresentation.

- CA- affirmed RTC. Declared the sale void and inexistent

ISSUE: Whether or not the sale is void and inexistent.

HELD:

- The respondents based their complaint to declare the deed void due to lack of consent
and want of consideration. They also added that their signatures were obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation as petitioners misled them to believe that the document was just to
evidence their debt of P2,000. Petitioners, on the other hand, assert that respondents signed
the Deed of Sale, as a public instrument, the truth of the recitals therein embodied could
only be impugned and disproved, not by mere preponderance of evidence, but by evidence
of "the clearest and most satisfactory character, convincing and overwhelming. Petitioners
further state that since they have been the ones paying real estate taxes on the property,
rather than their aunts, the latter by their acts had confirmed the deed executed by them.

- On the vital point of consideration, they and their witnesses, namely Juanita Jimenez and
Atty. Arcadio Espiritu repeatedly declared that the true consideration paid for the sale of the
land was not P2,000 as stated in their own Exhibit "1", the Deed of Sale, but in fact
P7,800.00. By their own testimony, they are not averse to bending the truth. While they are
claiming that they are regularly paying taxes on the land, they stated at the trial and appeal
that they had resorted to doctoring the price in the disputed Deed of Sale TO SAVE ON
TAXES. This admission opens questions on the genuiness and veracity of the public
instrument. Moreover, the originally typed amount was P3,000 but was later changed (which
was handwritten) into P2,000. Thus, the sanctity of the instrument is shredded. Under the
rules of court, public documents are presumed genuine and regular but this can be
overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence. Moreover, there was a question as to
the Tax Account No. of respondents, as it appears to be fake or belonging to someone else.
The petitioner spouses were found far from credible by CFI.

- As to the issue of prescription, it follows that once the disputed deed is found to be
inexistent and void, the statute of limitations cannot apply. As the courts below ruled, the
cause of action for its declaration as such is imprescriptible. The defect of inexistence of a
contract is permanent and incurable, hence it cannot be cured either by ratification or by
prescription. 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.

- In the case at bar, respondents pursued their cause promptly and forcefully. They never
intended to sell nor acceded to be bound by the sale of their land. Public policy is also well
served in defending the rights of the aged to legal protection, including their right to
property that is their home, as against fraud, misrepresentation, chicanery and abuse of
trust and confidence by those who owed them candor and respect.

- Finally, the court stated 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." Experience which is the life of the law as well
as logic and common sense militates against the petitioners' cause.