Marin v. Adil
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the rescission of a deed of exchange executed in 1963 between Aquilina P. Marin and the brothers Manuel P. Armada and Ariston P. Armada. Mrs. Marin assigned her hereditary share in her deceased mother's estate in Iloilo to the Armadas in exchange for the Armadas' rights and interests in properties located in Cotabato. The deed stipulated that the exchange was made in anticipation of the parties' rights being definitively ascertained and that it would be rescindible if it was later determined that either party had no right to the properties exchanged. Mrs. Marin, who resided in Cotabato, had hereditary rights in her parents' estate in Iloilo, while the Armadas, who resided in Iloilo, expected to inherit properties in General Santos City from their uncle. 2. Procedural History: The Armadas initiated a rescissory action against Mrs. Marin on December 7, 1976, alleging that she could not fulfill her obligation under the deed as she had assigned her hereditary rights to her sister, Aurora Provido-Collado, in 1968 and her share in her parents' estate was formally adjudicated to Aurora in 1977. The trial court, presided over by Judge Midpantao L. Adil, held that the action had not prescribed, as the Armadas' right to rescind accrued in 1976 upon discovery of Mrs. Marin's inability to perform. The court rescinded the deed of exchange, ordered restitution, released the Armadas from their obligation, and awarded damages and attorney's fees to the Armadas. Mrs. Marin appealed this decision to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-49018). Concurrently, Mrs. Marin challenged an order of execution pending appeal issued by Judge Adil through a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. L-47986), which was initially restrained by the Supreme Court. These two cases were consolidated. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, Aquilina P. Marin and Antonio S. Marin, Sr., filed petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Their primary arguments centered on the trial court's findings regarding prescription and the validity of the deed of exchange. They contended that the deed was void or inexistent due to irreconcilable provisions and the uncertainty of the parties' rights to the properties exchanged. Furthermore, they argued that the trial court erred in awarding damages and attorney's fees without sufficient evidence. The Supreme Court considered the consolidated cases and ultimately declared the deed of exchange void and inexistent, setting aside the trial court's judgment and order of execution pending appeal, and denying the claims for damages and attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Exchange with Quitclaim is void or inexistent due to ambiguity regarding the object of the contract. Whether the Armadas' action to declare the inexistence of the contract has prescribed. Whether the award of damages and attorney's fees to the Armadas is proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court's judgment and the order of execution pending appeal. The deed of exchange was declared void and inexistent. The annotation thereof on TCT Nos. 10833 and 10834 was ordered cancelled. The Armadas' claim for damages and attorney's fees was denied. Aquilina Provido-Marin's counterclaim was dismissed. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the Deed of Exchange with Quitclaim is void or inexistent because the intention of the parties relative to the lots, the objects of the exchange, could not be definitely ascertained due to irreconcilable provisions in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the deed, rendering it void under Article 1378, second paragraph, and Article 1409(6) of the Civil Code. The properties covered by the deed should have been specified and described more clearly. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the action to declare the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe, pursuant to Article 1410 of the Civil Code. Therefore, the Armadas' action, treated as an action to declare the deed void, had not prescribed. The trial court's finding that the right to rescind accrued in 1976 was noted, but the Court's primary basis for upholding the action was the non-prescriptive nature of actions for void contracts. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court denied the Armadas' claim for damages and attorney's fees, stating that as no evidence was presented, it could not sustain the award of P10,000 as moral and exemplary damages and P3,000 as attorney's fees. The Court also dismissed Aquilina Provido-Marin's counterclaim.
Main Doctrine
A deed of exchange is rendered void or inexistent if the intention of the parties relative to the lots, which are the objects of the exchange, cannot be definitely ascertained, as provided by Article 1378, second paragraph, and Article 1409(6) of the Civil Code. Furthermore, an action to declare the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe, pursuant to Article 1410 of the Civil Code. The Court also noted that the principle of exceptio non adimpleti contractus would bar a party from suing if they have not performed their part of the agreement.