SPOUSES NARCISO RONGAVILLA and DOLORES RONGAVILLA, Petitioners, v.

COURT OF
APPEALS AND MERCEDES DELA CRUZ AND FLORENCIA DELA CRUZ, Respondents.
G.R. No. 83974. August 17, 1998
J. QUISUMBING,
FACTS:
Respondents are the aunts of petitioner Dolores Rongavilla. Both spinsters, they earn their
livelihood as embroiderers ("magbuburda") and dressmakers; although unschooled in English,
they are however able to read and write in Tagalog. Since they are of advanced age (Mercedes
de la Cruz, 60 and Florencia de la Cruz, 71), their day to day activities were confined mostly close
to home.
In May 1976, the aunts borrowed P2,000 from the Rongavillas to have their rooftop repaired.
Later, petitioners went back to their aunts to have them sign a contract. Taking advantage of
their lack of education, the sisters (de la Cruz) were made to believe that such document,
typewritten in English, was just for the acknowledgment of their debt.
After four years, petitioners asked their aunts to vacate the land subject to litigation claiming that
she and her husband were the new owners. After verifying with the Registry of Deeds, the aunts
were surprised that what they have signed was actually a deed of sale. Their land title was
cancelled and the ownership was transferred to their nephews. The land was mortgaged with the
Cavite Development Bank. It was only then that the private respondents realized that the
document they had previously been asked by their nieces to sign was a deed of sale.
The Dela Cruzes filed a complaint before the Pasay RTC to have the deed of sale declared void
and inexistent. They contended that they did not sell the property, they did not receive any
consideration on the supposed sale, that their title to the property was cancelled to their damage
and prejudice. They also claimed moral and exemplary damages.
On the other hand, the Rongavillas allege that the land had been voluntarily sold, that there was
consent to the sale, there was sufficient consideration, that the Dela Cruz sisters had been fully
apprised by the Notary Public as to what the document was about, that prescription had set in,
and that the deed of sale contained all the requisites of a contract.
The trial court ruled that the deed of sale was void and inexistent. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed
this decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the disputed Deed of Sale is void and inexistent
HELD:
Yes, the disputed Deed of Sale is void and inexistent. As found by the trial court, the Dela Cruz
sisters were misled by Rongavilla into believing that what they signed was a document
acknowledging a loan. The consent was not merely vitiated, it did not exist at all. The sale of
the property was far from their minds.
As to the issue of consideration, the court notes that the deed makes mention of a consideration
of P2000.00.However, when the property was mortgaged, its value was P40000.00. The gross
inadequacy of the consideration deters the Court from believing that the property was actually
sold. It is more reasonable to assume that the amount of P2000.00 in the deed refers to the loan
extended by Rongavilla to her aunts. There was no consideration in this purported transaction.
Moreover, Jimenez and her lawyer repeatedly declared that the true consideration paid was
P7800.00 and not theP2000.00 that was stated in the deed of sale. It is also evident in the deed
of sale that the consideration originally typed therein (P3000.00) was later on substituted by the
handwritten amount (P2000.00). The Rongavillas may have many possible motives for these
alterations, but these testimonies only establish one thing: the non-sanctity of the deed as a
public instrument.
While petitioners claimed they were regularly paying taxes on the land in question, they had no
second thoughts stating at the trial and on appeal that they had resorted to doctoring the price
stated in the disputed Deed of Sale, allegedly to save on taxes. While it is true that public
documents are presumed genuine and regular under the Rules of Court, this presumption is a
rebuttable presumption which may be overcome by clear, strong and convincing evidence.
On the issue of prescription, the Court ruled that the document having been declared void, the
statute of limitations cannot apply. In this case, lack of consent and consideration made the deeds
of sale void altogether and rendered them subject to attack at any time.
Here in the present case, there is no doubt about the credibility of private respondents in
pursuing 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.
For as well said in the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution under review, "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."
Proper remedy: reconveyance, "The defect of inexistence of a contract is permanent and
incurable, hence it cannot be cured either by ratification or by prescription. x x x 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."