|
|
|
|
|
ESTEBAN
GARANCIANG
AND ERMANA BUENAFLOR,
G.
R.
No. L-22351
May
21,
1969
-versus-
CATALINO GARANCIANG AND RUFINA NOCIS, Defendants-Appellees. MAKALINTAL,
J :
This
is a pauper's appeal
from the Order dated August 20, 1963 of the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan dismissing the plaintiffs' Complaint in Case No. U-661. The
pertinent allegations in said Complaint are as follows: that the
plaintiffs
were the owners of several parcels of land [specifically referred to by
their respective lot numbers and certificates of title]; "that on three
occasions, thru misrepresentation, fraud and deceit [they] were
requested
to sign some papers purportedly to be (sic) an application for their
pension
and passport of their grandson to go to America"; that said documents,
which turned out to be deeds of sale of their lands, were executed
without
any consideration; "that the possession of the said properties were
transferred
to the defendants, some as a gesture of kindness . . . for the reason
that
Catalino Garanciang is the only son of the plaintiffs", that the
defendants
were able to register the documents and to obtain the corresponding
transfer
certificates of title; that the plaintiffs discovered the "anomalous
execution"
of the deeds of sale on or about September 10, 1958, whereupon they
filed
an adverse claim with the Register of Deeds; and that despite repeated
demands, the defendants failed and refused to deliver possession of the
lands to the plaintiffs. The relief prayed for was for recovery of
possession;
for a declaration that the deeds of sale and the transfer certificates
of title issued pursuant thereto were null and void; and for damages,
attorney's
fees and costs.
On August 7, 1963, the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on the ground of prescription and lack of cause of action. The plaintiffs opposed. On August 20, 1963, the trial Court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on the first ground relied upon. The plaintiffs moved to reconsider but were turned down; hence the instant appeal. In dismissing the Complaint, the trial Court relied on Article 1391 of the Civil Code which provides that an action for annulment [of a contract] on the ground of fraud prescribes in four years, computed from the discovery of the fraud. According to the Complaint, the fraud was discovered by the plaintiffs on September 10, 1958, so that when this action was filed on July 2, 1963, more than four years had passed. However, the Complaint alleges not only fraud in the execution of the deeds of sale sought to be annulled, but total absence of cause or consideration. This allegation, if true, would render the contracts not merely voidable but absolutely void and inexistent [Arts. 1352, 1409(3), Civil Code]. Indeed the sales were, on the face of the Complaint, worse than fictitious, since the plaintiffs had no intention - not even a simulated one - of executing them. And the action to set aside a contract that is fictitious or absolutely void or inexistent, does not prescribe. [Art. 1410, Civil Code; Borromeo vs. Borromeo, et al., 98 Phil. 432; Mapalo vs. Mapalo, G.R. No. L-21628, May 19, 1966]. In view of the said allegation which was deemed hypothetically admitted for purposes of the defendants' motion to dismiss, the trial court erred in dismissing the Complaint. WHEREFORE, the Order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of origin for further proceedings. Costs against appellees in this instance. Reyes, J.B.L. [Acting C.J.], Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando and Capistrano, JJ., concur. Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., did not take part. Concepcion, C.J. and Castro, J., are on official leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|