MPARO S. CRUZ; ERNESTO HALILI; ALICIA H.

FLORENCIO; DONALD HALILI;

EDITHA H. RIVERA; ERNESTO HALILI, JR.; AND JULITO HALILI, PETITIONERS,
V. ANGELITO S. CRUZ, CONCEPCION S. CRUZ, SERAFIN S. CRUZ, AND VICENTE
S. CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 211153. February 28 ,2018

Facts

Respondents Angelito S. Cruz and Concepcion S. Cruz filed an amended complaint on April 6,
1999, and it was docketed with the RTC as Civil Case No. 1380-98 SM. (Concepcion), Serafin S.
Cruz, and their siblings, petitioners Amparo S. Cruz (Amparo) and Antonia Cruz (Antonia),
claimed to have inherited the subject property, a 940-square-meter plot of land, from their
deceased parents, Felix and Felisa Cruz. The land was covered by Original Certificate of Title
No. On July 31, 1986, ON-658, a deed of extrajudicial estate settlement covering the subject
property was signed by the parties on July 31, 1986, with the understanding that each heir would
receive an equal share as required by law. b. In 1998, respondents were shown the subdivision
survey plan as the subject property was being divided. Concepcion was illiterate, and Amparo
and Antonia were able to commit the fraud by coercing her into signing the deed of extrajudicial
settlement of estate, which was written in English, without first reading it and explaining its
contents to the latter. Amparo and Antonia also took advantage of Concepcion's ignorance and
mental instability to sign the deed of extrajudicial settlement to her detriment.

Issues

Regardless of whether or not the extrajudicial settlement is void due to fraud, deceit,
misrepresentation, or error.

Decision
When one of the contractual parties lacks the legal ability to enter into a binding agreement, or
when assent is tainted by error, aggression, intimidation, coercion, or fraud, an action for
annulment of contract may be brought. An annulment is a legal procedure that by definition
contemplates a contract that is voidable but not yet invalid. Until it is canceled and overturned by
a court of law, this agreement is enforceable by all parties. It might be approved. There is a
four-year mandatory term for contract rescinding actions. On the other hand, an action to declare
a contract null and void presumes that the contract is void or that it meets all legal requirements
for contracts, but that the cause, object, or purpose is against the law, morality, good customs,
public order, or public policy, is illegal, or has been declared by the law to be void. Even if a
direct legal action does not annul the contract, it typically has no legal or binding impact. It
cannot be ratified either. It is not permissible to bring a claim for the declaration of contract
nullity.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BILLIE GHER

TUBALLAS Y FAUSTINO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT,

G.R. No.218572. June 19, 2017

Facts
The accused BRYAN T. FLORENCIO and the accused BILLIE GHER F. TUBALLAS
conspired to have sex with a fifteen-year-old girl against her will and without her consent on or
about November 12, 2009, in Valenzuela City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court. They were both seventeen (17) years old at the time.

ISSUES

Whether or not they should be considered guilty due to their young age.

RULINGS
Because of the aforementioned and the evidence presented, the court deems accused Billie Gher
Tuballas y Faustino to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the two (2) counts of rape that
have been brought against him.