ARGUMENTS

I. The Trial Court committed

reversible error in dismissing
the complaint on the ground
that Plaintiffs-Appellants
have no cause of action against
Defendants-Appellees.

1. The document entered into by the

Plaintiffs-Appellants and the Defendants-
Appellees was not a valid Deed of Sale in
that Plaintiff-Appellant Codilla Vda. de
Ardiente, an illiterate, affixed her thumb
mark on the contract involving the subject
property with the mistaken impression that
it was only a real estate mortgage and not
an absolute sale.

In the proceedings before the RTC, it was undisputed that Felisa Codilla
Ardiente is a woman of no educational attainment and could neither read
nor write.

While admitting that upon re-examination of the questioned fingerprint and

the report of NBI expert concludes that the questioned thumbprint and the
standard were impressed by one and the same person known as Mrs. Felisa
Codilla Vda. de Ardiente, appellants assert that said deed was a falsity and
does not express the true will and intention of the parties. Appellees, by
means of false representation, fraud, taking undue advantage of Felisa’s
ignorance and lack of education, caused her to affix her thumb mark on the
contract by misrepresenting to her that it pertains to a mortgage contract.

Knowing that Felisa, practically unschooled and illiterate, and helpless as

to the English language in which the Absolute Deed of Sale was drafted, it
would have been incumbent upon the appellees to show that the terms
thereof have been fully explained in a language known to her.

In the law of evidence, it is presumed that “a person intends the ordinary

consequences of his voluntary act; or a person makes ordinary care of his
concerns”. However, the presumption does not apply when one of the
contracting parties is unable to read or when the contract is written in a
language not understood by the said party. Article 1332 of the New Civil
Code is instructive, thus:
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.

The New Civil Code Commissioners found it necessary to incorporate the

article into the Code because of its belief there is still a fairly large number
of illiterates in the country, and documents are ordinarily drawn in English
or Spanish. Also, it is aimed to end unjust or oppressive transactions or
violations in connection with a sale of property. The wisdom of these
provisions cannot be doubted, considering many cases of unlettered persons
or even those with average intelligence invariably finding themselves in no
position whatsoever to bargain fairly with their creditors (Spouses Misena
v. Rongavilla, G.R. No. 130138).

In the case of Leonardo vs. CA, the wisdom of the provision was further
explained:

According to the late civil law authority, Arturo M. Tolentino, the (old) rule
that a party is presumed to know the import of a document to which he
affixes his signature and is bound thereby, has been altered by Art. 1332 of
the Civil Code. The provision states that "[w]hen 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."

Article 1332 was a provision taken from American law, necessitated by the
fact that there continues to be a fair number of people in this country
without the benefit of a good education or documents have been written in
English or Spanish. The provision was intended to protect a party to a
contract disadvantaged by illiteracy, ignorance, mental weakness or some
other handicap. It contemplates a situation wherein a contract is entered into
but the consent of one of the contracting parties is vitiated by mistake or
fraud committed by the other.

Thus, in case one of the parties to a contract is unable to read and fraud is
alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof
have been fully explained to the former. Where a party is unable to read,
and he expressly pleads in his reply that he signed the voucher in question
"without knowing (its) contents which have not been explained to him," this
plea is tantamount to one of mistake or fraud in the execution of the voucher
or receipt in question and the burden is shifted to the other party to show
that the former fully understood the contents of the document; and if he fails
to prove this, the presumption of mistake (if not fraud) stands unrebutted
and controlling.
The evidence proving that the document was not fully explained to
petitioner in a language known to her, given her low educational attainment,
remained uncontradicted by private respondents. (Insert TSN excerpt here)

Article 1330 states that contracts where consent is given by mistake or

because of violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud are voidable.

Hence, in the light of the circumstances presented by the testimonies of the

witnesses for both parties, the consent of petitioner was invalidated by a
substantial mistake or error, rendering the agreement voidable.

2. The document entered into by the parties

was a simple mortgage known as “prenda
en dono” in the locale of the Plaintiffs-
Appellants and the Defendants-Appellees.

The contract entered into by the Plaintiffs-Appellants and the Defendants-

Appellees was a prenda en dono, a kind of simple mortgaged widely
practiced by the locale of Bargangay Malubog, which was the residence of
the parties.

The nature and formalities of a prenda en dono agreement was explained

in the testimony of Marcelo Dabuco, who has resided in the said barangay
for seventy-two (72) years, as follows:

(Marcelo while on direct examination by Atty. Sarausos)

Q – Having lived in Barangay Malubog since birth and until the present Mr.
Witness, can you please inform the Honorable Court whether or not there is such a
practice as prenda en dono?

A – We have practiced that prenda en dono and also prenda saop. That prenda en
dono, the property will be surrendered to the person who accept[s] the mortgage and the
property will be redeemed but without any date or redemption period.

Q – Why do you know such practice Mr. Witness?

A – We there in the barangay, usually poor people, usually mortgage our property
to rich persons in our place.

xxx xxx xxx

Q – Having tried prenda en dono yourself Mr. Witness, will you please inform this
Honorable Court whether or not in our barangay prenda en dono is always in writing or
the same is not embodied in writing?

xxx xxx xxx

 A – There are prenda en dono in writing, the parties are strict and there are also
prenda en dono not in writing.

It must be noted that the testimony of Mr. Dabuco, which was questioned
by the counsel of the Defendants-Appellees as hearsay evidence and thus
inadmissible, is fully admissible in court via the provision laid out under
Rule 130, Section 41 of the Revised Rules of Procedure.

The rule provides:

Rule 130
Rules of Admissibility

xxx xxx xxx

Sec. 41. Common reputation. – Common reputation existing previous to the controversy
respecting facts of public or general interest more than thirty years old, or respecting
marriage or moral character, may be given in evidence. Monuments and inscriptions in
public places may be received as evidence of common reputation.

Matters of general interest are those that affect the inhabitants of a particular
region or community. For hearsay evidence regarding such matter to be
admissible in court, the following requirements must be met: first, the facts
must be of public or general interest and more than thirty (30) years old;
second, the common reputation must have been ancient, or 30 years or one
generation old; third, the reputation must have been one formed among a
class of persons who were in a position to have some sources of information
and to contribute intelligently to the formation of the opinion; and fourth,
the common reputation must have been existing prior to the controversy.

In the case, the testimony of Mr. Dabuco sufficiently meets the

requirements for the court to admit his testimony. Mr. Dabuco was born in
Barangay Malubog, and has resided therein in the entirety of his seventy-
two (72) years of existence. He has experienced engaging in the practice
itself as well, and is in a position to have witnessed its intricacies and
procedures in the community owing to the length of his being a resident
therein.

II.