Mapalo v. Mapalo

Facts:

Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba, simple illiterate farmers, were registered owners of a residential land in Manaoag, Pangasinan. Out of love and affection for Maximo Mapalo, Miguel’s brother who was about to get married, they decided to donate the eastern half of the land. However, they were deceived into signing a deed of absolute sale of the entire land on October 15, 1936. The document showed a consideration of P500, but the spouses actually did not receive anything. The spouses built a fence segregating the donated land. They continued to possess the western part up to the present. Not known to them, on March 15, 1938, Maximo registered the deed of sale in his favor and was able to obtain a TCT. On October 20, 1951, Maximo sold the entire land to the Narcisos, and a TCT was issued. The Narcisos took possession of the eastern part and filed a suit against Miguel and Candida, as well as Floro Guieb and Rosalia Mapalo Guieb who had a house on the western portion consented by the spouses. The spouses filed an answer with counterclaim, seeking cancellation of the TCT of the Narcisos on the ground that their consent to the deed of sale in favor of Maximo was obtained through fraud. The spouses also instituted a complaint to nullify the deeds of sale in 1936 and 1951. The trial court tried the case jointly. It ruled in favor of Miguel and Candida. The appellate court, however, reversed the judgment and rendered the sale valid on the ground of prescription. According to the appellate court, the sale is voidable and subject to annulment only within 4 years after discovery of fraud. It reckoned March 15, 1938, the date of registration, to be the reckoning period.

Issues:

(1) Whether, under the old civil code which was in effect during the execution of the sale, the sale to Maximo is void or merely voidable

(2) Whether the Narcisos were purchasers in good faith

Held:

(1) For a contract to exist at all, three essential requisites must concur: (1) consent, (2) object, and (3) cause or consideration. The Court of Appeals is right in that the element of consent is present as to the deed of sale of October 15, 1936. For consent was admittedly given, albeit obtained by fraud. Accordingly, said consent, although defective, did exist. In such case, the defect in the consent would provide a ground for annulment of a voidable contract, not a reason for nullity ab initio. The parties are agreed that the second element of object is likewise present in the deed of October 15, 1936, namely, the parcel of land subject matter of the same. Not so, however, as to the third element of cause or consideration. As regards the eastern portion of the land, the Mapalo spouses are not claiming the same, it being their stand that they have donated and freely given said half of their land to Maximo Mapalo. And since they did not appeal from the decision of the trial court finding that there was a valid and effective donation of the eastern portion of their land in favor of Maximo Mapalo, the same pronouncement has become final as to them, rendering it no longer proper herein to examine the existence, validity efficacy of said donation as to said eastern portion. Now, as to the western portion, however, the fact not disputed herein is that no donation by the Mapalo spouses obtained as to said portion. Accordingly, we start with the fact that liberality as a cause or consideration does not exist as regards the western portion of the land in relation to the deed of 1936; that there was no donation with respect to the same.

Was there a cause or consideration to support the existence of a contrary of sale? Since the deed of sale of 1936 is governed by the Old Civil Code, it should be asked whether its case is one wherein there is no consideration, or one with a statement of a false consideration. If the former, it is void and inexistent; if the latter, only voidable, under the Old Civil Code. As observed earlier, the deed of sale of 1936 stated that it had for its consideration Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos. In fact, however, said consideration 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. A contract of purchase and sale is null and void and produces no effect whatsoever where the same is without cause or consideration in that the purchase price which appears thereon as paid has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.

(2) What was the necessity, purpose and reason of Pacifico Narciso in still going to the spouses Mapalo and asked them to permit their brother Maximo to dispose of the above-described land? To this question it is safe to state that this act of Pacifico Narciso is a conclusive manifestation that they (the Narcisos) did not only have prior knowledge of the ownership of said spouses over the western half portion in question but that they also have recognized said ownership. It also conclusively shows their prior knowledge of the want of dominion on the part of their vendor Maximo Mapalo over the whole land and also of the flaw of his title thereto. Under this situation, the Narcisos may be considered purchasers in value but certainly not as purchasers in good faith.