10 GARANCIANG vs GARANCIANG 7.

1963: defendants filed a MTD on the ground of prescription and lack of

G.R. No. L-22351 cause of action
DATE: May 21, 1969
By: Enzo ISSUE/RULING:WON the action is barred by prescription? NO
Topic: Prescription
Plaintiffs-Appellant: Esteban Garanciang and Ermana Buenaflor 8. The action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or
Defendant-Appellees: Catalino Garanciang and Rufina Nocis inexistent, does not prescribe.
Ponente: J. Makalintal 9. In dismissing the complaint the trial court relied on Article 1391 of the
Civil Code, which provides that an action for annulment (of a contract) on
the ground of fraud prescribes in four years, computed from the discovery
SUMARRY: Ito yung sila pet Esteban and resp Catalino, they were Father and
of the fraud.
child. Pet Esteban Garanciang owned a parcel of land they alleged that thru
10. According to the complaint the fraud was discovered by the plaintiffs on
misrepresentation, fraud and deceit they signed some documents daw
September 10, 1958, so that when this action was filed on July 2, 1963,
purporting to be for application of pension and passport para makapag aral sa
more than four years had passed.
US yung anak nila na si def Catalino. In defense sabi ni resp Catalino na the land
11. However, the complaint alleges not only fraud in the execution of the
was given to him”in kindness”. Nag file ngayon ng reconveyance sila pet Esteban
deeds of sale sought to be annulled, but total absence of cause or
alleging that the transfer was void. In contention sabi nila resp Catalino na
consideration. This allegation, if true, would render the contracts not
barred by prescripton na sila pet Esteban. Hence, the issue of WON THE ACTION
merely voidable but absolutely void and inexistent
OF PET ESTEBAN FOR RECONVEYANCE IS ALREADY PRESCRIBED? Sabi ng SC NO
12. Indeed the sales were, on the face of the complaint, worse than fictitious,
kasi the action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or
since the plaintiffs had no intention — not even a simulated one — of
inexistent, does not prescribe. In the case the deceit was discovered in 1958 and
executing them.
the complaint was filed in 1963, even though there was a lapse of more than 4
years already, actions against void contracts do not prescribe. So panalo sila pet
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Esteban.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the
court of origin for further proceedings. Costs against appellees in this instance.
DOCTRINE: the action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or
inexistent, does not prescribe.

FACTS:
1. Petitioner were the owners of several parcels of land and that on 3
occasions. through misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, they were
requested to sign some papers for an application for their pension and
passport for their grandson to go to USA
2. That the said documents turned out to be deed of sale of their lands.
(without any consideration, as gesture of kindness)
3. The possession was transferred to the defendants
4. Respondent is the only son of the petitioner
5. Respondents was able to register the documents and place it under their
names.
6. Petitioner discovered the “anomalous execution” of the deed of sale on
1958 thus filing an adverse claim with the civil register of deeds.