PERPETUA VDA.

DE APE vs CA (2005)
FACTS:

• Perpetua is the surviving spouse of Fortunato.

• Fortunato is one of the 11 children of the late Cleopas Ape. Cleopas owned a parcel of
land known as Lot No. 2319 Escalante Cadastre at Negros Occidental.
• Private respondents filed before the CFI Negros Occidental for "Specific Performance
of a Deed of Sale with Damages" against Fortunato and his wife Perpetua of their
1/11th share in Lot 2319. They alleged that they entered into a contract of sale with
petitioners in consideration of P5,000 evidenced by a receipt.
• Fortunato denied having sold their share to respondent, and his signature was forged.
They claimed that it was merely a contract of lease. Fortunato then prayed for
annulment of the contract of lease and invoked his right to redeem.
• Prior to the resolution of the case, Fortunato died and was substituted by his heirs.
• During trial, the private respondent testified that when the lease was about to expire,
they agreed to enter into a contract of sale. A payment of P5,000 was tendered and
Fortunato affixed his signature on the receipt prepared by private respo.
• The petitioner insisted that the lot 2319 had not yet been formally subdivided. That
the day when they went to collect rentals, the receipt was never explained to them.
She also testified that her husband Fortunato was illiterate and only know how to write
his name.
• Private respo argued that the land was divided among the heirs in hantal-hantal
manner.
• The trial court held that private respo failed to prove that they actually paid the
purchase price to petitioners.
• On appeal, CA reversed the decision of trial court and ordered the petitioners to
execute DOAS in favor of the private respondent. Upheld that Exhibit G (Receipt
P5,000) is the best proof of contract of sale.

ISSUE:

W/N the receipt signed by Fortunato proves the existence of a contract of sale between him
and private respondent.

RULING:

NO.

A contract of sale is a consensual contract, thus, it is perfected by mere consent of the parties.

To be valid, consent must meet the following requisites: (a) it should be intelligent, or with
an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (b) it should be free and (c) it should be
spontaneous.

The testimony of Flores (PR son-in-law), who prepared the receipt in English language showed
that he was very much aware of Fortunato's inability to read and write in the English language,
however, he did not bother to fully explain to the latter the substance of the receipt (Exhibit
"G"). The witness during signing of receipt who represented Fortunato was a maid who did
not also know how to read and write English.
He even dismissed the idea of asking somebody else to assist Fortunato considering that a
measly sum of thirty pesos was involved.

The court annuls the contract of sale between Fortunato and private respondent on the ground
of vitiated consent.

CA decision reversed. Trial court decision reinstated