MARIN V. ADIL – G.R. NO.

47986

Facts:

The Armadas were expecting to inherit some lots from their uncle.
Marin had hereditary rights in the estates of her parents. A deed of
exchange was executed wherein it was stipulated that both parties
acknowledge that the exchange operates to their individual and
mutual benefit and advantage, for the reason that the property
being ceded, transferred, conveyed and unclaimed by one party to
the other is situated in the place where either is a resident resulting in
better administration of the properties. But the expected land was
adjudicated to Soledad, sister of Marin. So, the Armadas and other
heirs sued Soledad for claiming to be the sole heir of their uncle, but
ended in a compromise where the Armadas were awarded two
lots. Marin waived, renounced and quitclaimed her share in her
parents’ estate in favour of her another sister Aurora. She cannot
anymore fulfil her obligations in her signed deed of exchange with
the Armadas. The Armadas filed a rescisorry action against Marin.

Issue:

Did Armadas’ action prescribe?

Held:

No. The action to declare contracts void and inexistent does not
prescribe. It is evident from the deed of exchange that the intention
of the parties relative to the lots cannot be definitely ascertained.
This circumstance renders the exchange void.

RONGAVILLA V. CA – G.R. NO. 83974

Facts:

The Dela Cruz sisters were the aunts of Dolores Rongavilla. They
borrowed P2,000 from the Rongavillas to have their rooftop repaired.
Later, petitioners went back to their aunts to have them sign a
contract. Taking advantage of their lack of education, the sisters
were made to believe that such document, typewritten in English,
was just for the acknowledgment of their debt. After four years,
petitioners asked their aunts to vacate the land subject to litigation
claiming that she and her husband were the new owners. After
verifying with the Registry of Deeds, the aunts were surprised that
what they have signed was actually a deed of sale. Their land title
was cancelled and the ownership was transferred to their
nephews. The land was mortgaged with the Cavite Development
Bank.

Issue:

Was the deed of sale void?

Held:

Yes. While petitioners claimed they were regularly paying taxes on

the land in question, they had no second thoughts stating at the trial
and on appeal that they had resorted to doctoring the price stated
in the disputed Deed of Sale, allegedly to save on taxes. While it is
true that public documents are presumed genuine and regular
under the Rules of Court, this presumption is a rebuttable
presumption which may be overcome by clear, strong and
convincing evidence

CRISTOBAL V. GOMEZ – G.R. NO. 27014

Facts:

Epifanio sold a property with pacto de retro to Yangco. It was

stipulated that the property is redeemable within five years. When
the period expired, Yangco extended it. In order to redeem, Epifanio
asked Banas for a loan. Banas agreed, with the condition that
Marcelino and Telesfora be responsible for the loan. The two
entered into a private partnership in participation which stipulated
that the property shall be returned to Epifanio as soon as the capital
employed have been covered. Epifanio died. He left Paulina and
their children. Marcelino acquired exclusive rights over the property
when Telesfora conveyed her interest to him. Marcelino sold the
property to Banas, with pacto de retro, redeemable within five years.
He redeemed it from Banas. Marcelino submitted a notarial
document wherein Epifanio certifies that Marcelino had requested
him to draw up a notarial act showing the properties which
Marcelino was known to be the true owner. Marcelino relies upon
this instrument as proving title in him, contending that Epifanio and
his successors are estopped from claiming said lot.

Issue:

Are the heirs of Epifanio estopped from claiming the property?

Held:
No. Estoppel may not be invoked by a person party to the collusion,
by reason that he could not have been misled. The document
executed by Epifanio was merely laying the basis of a scheme to
defeat Yangco’s rights under his contract of purchase of 1891, or to
defeat Epifanio’s other creditors