Essential Requisites

Case No. 29 – Tutoy

Hemedes vs. CA, 316 SCRA 347
Facts:
Jose Hemedes executed a document conveying ownership a parcel of land, together with all its :
Property (land) was donated inter vivos by husband to third wife. Third wife is unable to read and write, thus
issue on applicability of Artiocle 1332 of Civil Code. She donated inter vivos the same property to her
daughter. Later on, she executed a “Kasunduan” transferring the same property to his stepson (son of his
husband from previous marriage. Daughter-donee mortgaged the land; the same was foreclosed. Stepson-
donee sold the land. Ownership over the land is now in dispute.

Issue: W/N the conveyance by Justa Kausapin in favor of Maxima Hemedes was spurious.

Ruling:
No.  Justa disclaims any knowledge of the deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima Hemedes and asserts that it
was only during the hearing conducted before the trial court that she first caught a glimpse of the deed of
conveyance and thus, she could not have possibly affixed her thumbmark thereto. It is private respondents'
own allegations which render Article 1332 inapplicable for it is useless to determine whether or not Justa was
induced to execute said deed of conveyance by means of fraud employed by Maxima, who allegedly took
advantage of the fact that the former could not understand English, when Justa denies even having seen the
document before the present case was initiated in 1981.

Main Point:
Art. 1332 was intended for the protection of a party to a contract who is at a disadvantage due to
his illiteracy, ignorance, mental weakness or other handicap. This article contemplates a situation
wherein a contract has been entered into, but the consent of one of the parties is vitiated by
mistake or fraud committed by the other contracting party. Clearly, Article 1332 assumes that the
consent of the contracting party imputing the mistake or fraud was given, although vitiated, and
does not cover a situation where there is a complete absence of consent.