Oberes v. Oberes
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership and partition of Lot No. 5306, a parcel of land inherited by the late spouses Francisco Oberes and Catalina Larino from their five children: petitioners Ciriaco, Cesario, and Gaudencio Oberes, and respondent Adriano Oberes, along with their sibling Domingo. While the siblings initially agreed on a partition of their inherited properties, a disagreement arose regarding Lot No. 5306. Petitioners Ciriaco and Cesario, along with Domingo, executed an Affidavit of Waiver in 1994, but respondent Adriano refused to sign, asserting he had purchased Gaudencio's share in 1973. Gaudencio denied selling his share, claiming he is illiterate and could not have signed the Deed of Sale in the manner presented, while Adriano maintained the sale was valid and that the dispute only arose later when Ciriaco and Cesario sold their other inherited lots. 2. Procedural History: On August 13, 2003, petitioners Ciriaco, Cesario, and Gaudencio Oberes filed a Complaint against respondent Adriano Oberes for the annulment of a Deed of Sale concerning Lot No. 5306, recovery of possession, judicial partition, and damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the Deed of Sale null and void and awarding one-half of Lot No. 5306 to Gaudencio and the other half to Adriano's heirs, directing a partition. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision on June 4, 2013, dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription, finding that the action for annulment of the contract, which was deemed voidable due to vitiated consent, was filed beyond the four-year prescriptive period from the discovery of the alleged fraud. The CA's denial of the motion for reconsideration on January 29, 2014, led to the present petition. 3. The Petition: Petitioners seek a reversal of the CA's decision through a Petition for Review on Certiorari. They argue that the CA gravely abused its discretion by dismissing their complaint on the ground of prescription, contending that this allowed prescription to shield fraud. Furthermore, they assert that the CA erred in declaring the Deed of Sale merely voidable, insisting it should have been declared null and void due to the alleged lack of consent from petitioners Ciriaco and Cesario, who were co-owners at the time of the sale, and the proven illiteracy and denial of execution by petitioner Gaudencio. The petitioners maintain that the sale was invalid from its inception due to fraud and lack of genuine consent, and thus, the prescriptive period should not bar their claim.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the Complaint on the ground of prescription. Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in declaring the questioned Deed of Sale merely voidable or annullable and not null and void as declared by the trial court.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed June 4, 2013 Decision and the January 29, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CV No. 03166 are AFFIRMED in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the action for annulment of contract, where consent is vitiated by fraud, must be brought within four years from the time of discovery of the same, as provided under Article 1391 of the Civil Code. In this case, the four-year period is reckoned from May 17, 1994, when the petitioners gained knowledge of the fraudulent deed of the respondent. Since the petitioners lodged their complaint for annulment only on May 23, 2002, eight years after the discovery of fraud, the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. The Supreme Court (SC) emphasized that in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription, the CA neither penalized the petitioners nor rewarded the respondent, but simply applied the law that the right of the petitioners to seek redress for the fraudulent acts of the respondent had been lost by the mere passage of time fixed by law. On Issue 2: The Court held that the Deed of Sale was not null and void but voidable. Under Article 1390 of the Civil Code, contracts where consent is vitiated by fraud are voidable. The Court found that petitioner Gaudencio's consent to the deed of sale was not intelligently given because he was unlettered and did not know the English language in which the deed of sale was written. Applying Article 1332 of the Civil Code, the Court presumed that mistake or fraud attended the execution of the contract, and the respondent failed to overcome this presumption by showing that he fully explained the contents of the deed of sale to petitioner Gaudencio in the dialect known to him. The Court also ruled that petitioners Ciriaco and Cesario cannot claim that the deed of sale is null and void on the ground that they did not give their consent thereto, as they had orally partitioned the properties left by their parents and had already received their shares in the inheritance.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 1332 of the Civil Code, when one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former. This provision creates a presumption of mistake or fraud in contracts involving parties with limited education. To overcome this presumption, the enforcing party must prove that the terms of the contract were fully explained in a language or dialect understood by the disadvantaged party. Failure to do so vitiates consent, rendering the contract voidable.