10 GARANCIANG vs GARANCIANG 7.

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

G.R. No. L-22351
DATE: May 21, 1969
By: Enzo
Topic: Prescription
Plaintiffs-Appellant: Esteban Garanciang and Ermana Buenaflor
Defendant-Appellees: Catalino Garanciang and Rufina Nocis
Ponente: J. Makalintal
SUMARRY: Ito yung sila pet Esteban and resp Catalino, they were Father and
child. Pet Esteban Garanciang owned a parcel of land they alleged that thru
misrepresentation, fraud and deceit they signed some documents daw purporting
to be for application of pension and passport para makapag aral sa US yung anak
nila na si def Catalino. In defense sabi ni resp Catalino na the land was given to
him”in kindness”. Nag file ngayon ng reconveyance sila pet Esteban alleging that
the transfer was void. In contention sabi nila resp Catalino na barred by
prescripton na sila pet Esteban. Hence, the issue of WON THE ACTION OF PET
ESTEBAN FOR RECONVEYANCE IS ALREADY PRESCRIBED? Sabi ng SC NO kasi the
action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or inexistent,
does not prescribe. In the case the deceit was discovered in 1958 and 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
Esteban.
DOCTRINE: the action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or
inexistent, does not prescribe.
cause of action 

ISSUE/RULING:
WON the action is barred by prescription? NO
8. The action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or
inexistent, does not prescribe.
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 of
the fraud.
10. According to the complaint the fraud was discovered by the plaintiffs on
September 10, 1958, so that when this action was filed on July 2, 1963,
more than four years had passed.
11. However, the complaint alleges not only fraud in the execution of the
deeds of sale sought to be annulled, but total absence of cause or
consideration. This allegation, if true, would render the contracts not
merely voidable but absolutely void and inexistent
12. Indeed the sales were, on the face of the complaint, worse than fictitious,
since the plaintiffs had no intention — not even a simulated one — of
executing them.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
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.

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.