THE LAW CHIC

Home Bar Exam FREE Downloads About Contact

"I chose to go to law school because I thought that someday, somehow I'd make a
difference." -A.

Mapalo Vs. Mapalo

Socialize Us Like 0
StumbleUpon
Share 1 1 Tweet

Facts:

The spouses Miguel Mapalo and

Candida Quiba were the registered
owners of a residential land located
in Pangasinan. (1,635 sq. m.)

The spouses donated the eastern

half of the land to Miguels brother
Maximo Mapalo who was about to What are you looking for?
get married. Search

However, they were deceived into

signing, on October 15, 1936, a Archive
deed of absolute sale over the entire 2017 (1)
land in Maximos favor. Their 2016 (25)
signatures were procured by fraud
2015 (8)
because they were made to believe
2014 (45)
by Maximo and the lawyer who
November (1)
acted as notary public who
"translated" the document, that the October (1)
same was a deed of donation in September (13)
Maximo's favor covering one-half of
August (11)
their land. (It must be noted that the
Vasquez Vs. CA
spouses are illiterate farmers).
Spouses Lequin Vs. Sps. Vizconde
Although the document of sale
Ang Yu Asuncion Vs. CA
stated a consideration of Five
Hundred (P500.00) Pesos, the Heirs Of Intac Vs. CA

aforesaid spouses did not receive Vda. De Catindig Vs. Heirs Of Roque
anything of value for the land.
In 1938, Maximo Mapalo, without Modina Vs. CA

the consent of the spouse, Mapalo Vs. Mapalo

registered the sale in his favor. Zambales Mining Workers: Lift The
After thirteen years (1951), he sold DENR Suspension ...
the land to the Narcisos. (Evaristo, Baranda Vs. Gustillo
Petronila Pacifico and Miguel) who
Ramos Vs. Director Of Land
thereafter registered the sale and
What Are The Powers Of The
obtained a title in their favor.
COMELEC?
In 1952, the Narcisos filed a
complaint with the CFI to be July (4)

declared owners of the entire land, June (5)

for possession of its western May (1)
portion; for damages; and for
April (5)
rentals.
March (3)
The Mapalo spouses filed a
February (1)
counterclaim seeking cancellation of
the the Narcisos titles as to the
western half of the land. They said Jurisprudence (FULL TEXT)
that their signatures to the deed of
sale of 1936 was procured by fraud
and that the Narcisos were buyers
in bad faith.

They also filed another complaint

wherein they asked the court to
declare deeds of sale of 1936 and of
1951 over the land in question be
declared null and void as to the
western half of said land.

CFI ruled in favor of the Mapalo

spouses. Upon appeal filed by
Narcisos, CA reversed the lower
courts ruling solely on the ground
that the consent of the Mapalo
spouses to the deed of sale of 1936
having been obtained by fraud, the
same was voidable, not void ab
initio, and, therefore, the action to
annul the same, within four years
from notice of the fraud, had long
prescribed. (From March 15, 1938).
 Hence, this appeal.

Issues:
1. WON the deed of sale executed in
1936 was null and void. YES
2. WON the Narcisos were purchasers in
good faith. NO

Held:

1st issue: YES, the sale was void.

The Civil Code governs the

transaction because it was executed
in 1936
Accordingly, 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.

There is lack of consideration

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. The
problem, therefore, is whether a deed
which states a consideration that in fact
did not exist, is a contract without
consideration, and therefore void ab
initio, or a contract with a false
consideration, and therefore, at least
under the Old Civil Code, voidable.
When there is no consideration, the
contract is null and void
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.

In our view, therefore, the ruling of this

Court in Ocejo, Perez & Co. vs. Flores,
40 Phil. 921, is squarely applicable
herein. In that case we ruled that 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.

2nd issue: No, they were no

purchasers in good faith.

Narcisos were not buyers in good

faith
Aside from the fact that all the parties in
these cases are neighbors, except
Maximo Mapalo the foregoing facts are
explicit enough and sufficiently reveal
that the Narcisos were aware of the
nature and extent of the interest of
Maximo Mapalo their vendor, over the
above-described land before and at the
time the deed of sale in their favor was
executed.

The Narcisos were purchaser-in-value

but not purchasers in good faith
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.

REFERENCE:

G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966

MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET

AL., respondents.

0 Comments:

Post A Comment
 Enter your comment...

Comment as:
Unknown (Google)

Sign out

Publish Preview Notify me

Older Post Newer Post

The Law Chic Bar Exam FREE Downloads Notes Materials

Follow By Email Categories Popular Posts

Email address... Submit #InspirationMonday

1 PALS Materials For
Bar Bar 2016 (FREE
Translate Bar Exam Results Download)

Bar Exam Reviewers

Select Language Select Language 2 Ang Yu Asuncion Vs.
Case Digests CA
Powered by Translate
Free Downloads
Powered by Translate
3 PALS Bar Ops
Materials
Pilipinas 2014: First Batch
Notes Of Materials Ready For
Quotes From The Download
Supreme Court
4 In Re: Letter Of
Supreme Court
Associate Justice Reynato
Rulings
S. Puno
Tips
5 Carbonell Vs. CA

6 Catholic Vicar Vs. CA

7 Case Digests By
 Justice Velasco For Bar
2016

8 Baranda Vs. Gustillo

9 Mapalo Vs. Mapalo

10 Tagatac Vs. Jimenez

Copyright 2014 kite | All Rights Reserved. Design By Templateclue - Published By

Gooyaabi Templates