ACABAL & NICOLAS VS. ACABAL ET AL.

G.R. No. 148376, March 31, 2005

Carpio Morales, J.
DOCTRINE: Remedial Law. The failure to deny the genuineness and due
execution of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing
against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of
limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration. It is a basic rule in evidence that
the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations.
Civil Law.One who seeks equity and justice must come to the court with
clean hands, otherwise he have no remedy under the law if the parties are in pari
delicto.
Civil Law. The sale or other disposition of one or some co-owner affects
only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to
this grantor in the partition of the thing owned in common.
FACTS: Respondent is the owner of a parcel of land conveyed to him his
parents. Petitioner is his godson and nephew, and to whom he executed a deed
of sale for the land in dispute. He alleges in the complaint that what he signed
was a document for lease only instead of a deed of sale, prompting him to file a
case for the annulment of the deed of sale.
ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the failure to deny the genuineness and due execution
of an actionable document preclude a party from arguing against it
(2) Whether or not the case falls under the doctrine of in pari delicto
(3) Whether or not the land be considered a conjugal property by the
respondent and his wife
HELD: (1) NO. The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an
actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against it by
evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations,
estoppel, and want of consideration. It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden
of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. If he claims a right granted
by law, he must prove it by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his
own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent.
(2) YES. Even assuming that the disposition of the property by
respondent was contrary to law, he would still have no remedy under the law as
he and petitioner were in pari delicto, hence, he is not entitled to afirmative relief
one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands. The
exception under Article 1416 shall not apply since the protection contemplated
refers to the beneficiary and not to the owner thereof.
(3) YES. Since the property was acquired during the existence of the
marriage, the presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code is that it is the
couples conjugal property. Even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his,
the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who

did not consent to the sale. This is because under the aforementioned codal
provision, the sale or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the
transferee gets only what would correspond to this grantor in the partition of the
thing owned in common.