HEMEDES v. CA
Where did the problem start: When Justa disclaims
Topic: Illiteracy/Unknown Language; Art. 1332;
DOCTRINE:
Art. 1332. 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.
Art. 1332 of the Civil Code was intended for the protection of
a party to a contract who is at a disadvantage due to his
illiteracy, ignorance, mental weakness or other handicap,
and contemplates a situation wherein a contract has been
entered into, but the consent of one of the parties is vitiated
by mistake or fraud committed by the other contracting
party.
In order that mistake may invalidate consent, it should refer
to the substance of the thing which is the object of the
contract, or to those conditions which have principally
moved one or both parties to enter into the contract; Art.
1332 assumes that the consent of the contracting party
imputing the mistake or fraud was given, although vitiated,
and does not cover a situation where there is complete
absence of consent.
VOCABULARY:
Donation Inter Vivos A contract which takes place by the
mutual consent, of the giver, who divests himself of the thing
given in order to transmit the title of it to the donee
gratuitously, and the donee, who accepts the thing and
acquires a legal title to it.
SHORT ANSWERS:
1. Who is chasing who: Hemedes was appealing for
the validity of the conveyance in her favor
2.
any knowledge of the "Deed of Conveyance of
Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" in favor of
Maxima Hemedes and alleges that conveyance was
invalid as Justa is illiterate
3. What is the contract in question: Deed of
Coveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion
FACTS:
Short version of facts: Property (land) was donated inter
vivos by husband to third wife. Third wife is unable to read
and write, thus issue on applicability of Artiocle 1332 of Civil
Code. She donated inter vivos the same property to her
daughter. Later on, she executed a Kasunduan transferring
the same property to his stepson (son of his husband from
previous marriage. Daughter-donee mortgaged the land; the
same was foreclosed. Stepson- donee sold the land.
Ownership over the land is now in dispute.
1947 - Property in dispute is a parcel of land (in Cabuyao,
Laguna) originally owned by Enrique Hemedes, father of
petitioner. This land was donated inter vivos, subject to
certain resolutory conditions, by Enrique to his third wife
Justa Kauapin, mother of petitioner. Enrique executed a
Donation Inter Vivos With Resolutory Conditions" to convey
ownership over the land. The resolutory conditions are as
follows:
Upon the death or remarriage of the DONEE, the title to the
property donated shall revert to any of the children, or
their heirs, of the DONOR expressly designated by the
DONEE in a public document conveying the property to the
latter; or
In absence of such an express designation made by the
DONEE before her death or remarriage contained in a public
instrument as above provided, the title to the property shall
automatically revert to the legal heirs of the DONOR in
common.
1960- Pursuant to first resolutory condition, Justa donated
the property to her daughter Maxima, with reservation that
the possession and enjoyment of the said property shall
remain vested in Justa during her lifetime. A "Deed of
Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion was
executed embodying the transfer. Justa affixed her
thumbmark in the said document as she was unable to read
and write.
1962- Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. (0-941) 0-198
was issued in the name of Maxima Hemedes married to Raul
Rodriguez by the Registry of Deeds of Laguna, with the
annotation that "Justa Kausapin shall have the usufructuary
rights over the parcel of land herein described during her
lifetime or widowhood."
1964- Maxima constituted a real estate mortgage over the
subject property in favor of R&B Insuarnce to serve as
security for a loan which they obtained in the amount of
P6,000.
1971- Despite the earlier conveyance of the subject land in
favor of Maxima Hemedes, Justa Kausapin executed a
"Kasunduan" whereby she transferred the same land to her
stepson Enrique D. Hemedes. It was alleged that Justa
depended on her stepson for support. Enrique (stepson)
obtained two declarations of real property in 1972, and
again, in 1974, when the assessed value of the property was
raised. Also, he has been paying the realty taxes on the
property from the time Justa Kausapin conveyed the property
to him in 1971 until 1979.
1974- For failure to pay the loan, the property was
extrajudicially foreclosed and publicly auctioned wherein
R&B Insurance was the highest bidder. Register of Deeds of
Laguna cancelled OCT No. (0-941) 0-198 and issued Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 41985 in the name of R & B
Insurance. The annotation of usufruct in favor of Justa
Kausapin was maintained in the new title.
1979- Enrique (stepson) sold the property to Dominium
Realty and Construction Corporation.
1981- Justa Kausapin executed an affidavit affirming the
conveyance of the subject property in favor of Enrique D.
Hemedes as embodied in the "Kasunduan" dated May 27,
1971, and at the same time denying the conveyance made
to Maxima Hemedes.
1981- R&B Insurance learned of transfer and occupancy of
Dominium in the property (Dominium leased the same to
sister company and structures were being built on the land).
An agreement was not reached between the parties.
Private respondent alleges that initial conveyance to Maxima
is invalid per article 1332 of the Civil Code as Justa is unable
to read and write. Private respondent alleges that the deed
of conveyance was forged.
ISSUE:
WON the conveyance by Justa Kausapin in favor of Maxima
Hemedes wa spurious Art. 1332 was intended for the protection of a party to a
contract who is at a disadvantage due to his illiteracy,
ignorance, mental weakness or other handicap. This article
HELD:
contemplates a situation wherein a contract has been
No.
entered into, but the consent of one of the parties is vitiated
Public respondent's finding that the "Deed of Conveyance of
by mistake or fraud committed by the other contracting
Unregistered Real Property By Reversion" executed by Justa
party. Clearly, article 1332 assumes that the consent of the
Kausapin in favor of Maxima Hemedes is spurious is not
contracting party imputing the mistake or fraud was given,
supported by the factual findings in this case. It is grounded
although vitiated, and does not cover a situation where there
upon the mere denial of the same by Justa Kausapin.
is a complete absence of consent.
Although a comparison of Justa Kausapin's thumbmark with
In this case, Justa disclaims any knowledge of the "Deed of
the thumbmark affixed upon the deed of conveyance would
Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" in
have easily cleared any doubts as to whether or not the deed
favor of Maxima Hemedes. In fact, she asserts that it was
was forged, comparison was not made, however. It is a legal
only during the hearing conducted before the trial court that
presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be
she first caught a glimpse of the deed of conveyance and
adverse if produced.
thus, she could not have possibly affixed her thumbmark
Public respondent was in error when it sustained the trial thereto. It is private respondents' own allegations which
court's decision to nullify the "Deed of Conveyance of render article 1332 inapplicable for it is useless to determine
Unregistered Real Property by Reversion" for failure of whether or not Justa was induced to execute said deed of
Maxima Hemedes to comply with article 1332 of the Civil conveyance by means of fraud employed by Maxima, who
Code, which states: allegedly took advantage of the fact that the former could
not understand English, when Justa denies even having seen
When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract the document before the present case was initiated in 1981.
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.