FELICIANO V.

ZALDIVAR 503 SCRA 122

1330-1344 – Defects of the Will

FACTS: Feliciano filed against Spouses Zaldivar a complaint for nullity of TCT and reconveyance of the subject property in CDO and that such was
registered in the name of Aurelio Zaldivar. In her complaint, she alleged that she was the registered owner of a parcel of land covered by a TCT and that sometime in 1974,
Aurelio, allegedly through fraud, was able to obtain TCT of Feliciano’s lot as described in TCT.

Remegia denied that she sold the subject lot either Gil or Dalman. She likewise impugned as falsified the joint affidavit of confirmation of sale that she and her uncle purportedly
executed before a notary public where Remegia appears to have confirmed the sale of the subject property to Gil. She alleged that she never parted with the title and was never
lost.

RTC ruled in favor of Remegia. CA reversed the decision of RTC and ruled in favor of Zaldivar.

ISSUE: WON the certificate of title in the name of Zaldivar is void. [YES] RULING:

TCT Under Aurelio’s Name Properly Nullified; Article 1332

It was procured through fraud and that he cannot raise the defense of indefeasibility of the title because the indefeasibility of a Torrens title does not furnish a shield for fraud. As
such, title issued on void documents may be annulled.

The joint affidavit of confirmation of sale executed by Remegia is not proper. In the first place, it is not a mode of acquiring ownership and it was entirely written in
English.

Article 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract
must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.

The principle that a party is presumed to know the import of a document upon fixing signatures is modified by Article 1332.

When one is unable to read or if the contract is in a language not understood by the party and mistake or fraud is alleged, the obligation to show that the terms are fully explained
devolves to the party seeking to enforce the contract if fails to discharge, presumption of mistake is unrebutted.

IN THE CASE: The presumption is that Remegia, considering her limited education attainment, did not understand the full import of the joint affidavit of confirmation of sale
and consequently fraud or mistake attended its execution.
• The burden is on the Spouses Zaldivar to rebut presumption on this part.

The bare statement Atty. Velez that he read and interpreted the document to the affiants and that he asked them as to the correctness of its contents does not necessarily
establish that Remegia actually comprehended or understood the import of the joint affidavit of confirmation of sale. Nowhere is it stated in the affidavit itself that its contents
were fully explained to Remegia in a language that she understood before she signed the same. The presumption was not sufficiently overcome.