Rivera vs. Fidela Del Rosario Digest

G.R. No.
144934 January 15, 2004
ADELFA S. RIVERA, CYNTHIA S. RIVERA, and JOSE S. RIVERA, petitioners,

vs.
FIDELA DEL ROSARIO (deceased and substituted by her co-respondents), and her
children, OSCAR, ROSITA, VIOLETA, ENRIQUE JR., CARLOS, JUANITO and
ELOISA, all surnamed DEL ROSARIO, respondents.
FACTS:
1. Respondents were the registered owners of a parcel of land. the children,

executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of their mother and co-respondent,
Fidela, authorizing her to sell, lease, mortgage, transfer and convey their rights.
Subsequently, Fidela borrowed P250,000 from Mariano Rivera. To secure the
loan, she and Mariano Rivera agreed to execute a deed of real estate mortgage
and an agreement to sell the land.
2. Consequently, on March 9, 1987, Mariano went to his lawyer, to have three
documents drafted: the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, a Kasunduan (Agreement
to Sell)6, and a Deed of Absolute Sale.
3. The Kasunduan provided that the petitioners would purchase the Lot No. 1083-C
for a consideration of P2,141,622.50. This purchase price was to be paid in three
installments:
4. As previously stated, however, Mariano had already caused the drafting of the
Deed of Absolute Sale. But unlike the Kasunduan, the said deed stipulated a
purchase price of only P601,160, and covered a certain Lot No. 1083-A in
addition to Lot No. 1083-C.10 This deed, as well as the Kasunduan and the Deed
of Real Estate Mortgage11, was signed by Mariano’s children, petitioners as
buyers and mortgagees.
5. The following day, Mariano Rivera returned to the office of his Atty. bringing with
him the signed documents. He also brought with him Fidela and her son so that
the latter two may sign the mortgage and the Kasunduan there.
6. Although Fidela intended to sign only the Kasunduan and the Real Estate
Mortgage, she inadvertently affixed her signature on all the three documents.
7. Mariano then payed Fidela. In the ensuing months, also, Mariano gave Oscar del
Rosario several amounts totaling P67,800 upon the latter’s demand for the
payment of the balance despite Oscar’s lack of authority to receive payments
under the Kasunduan.13 Fidela entrusted the owner’s copy of title (M) to Mariano
to guarantee compliance with the Kasunduan.
8. Mariano unreasonably refused to return the TCT, one of the respondents, Carlos
del Rosario, caused the annotation on TCT No. T-50.668 (M) of an Affidavit of
Loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of the title on September 7, 1992.
9. When Mariano registered the Deed of Absolute Sale on October 13, 1992, and
afterwards caused the annotation of an Affidavit of Recovery of Title on October
14, 1992. Thus, TCT No. T-50.668 (M) was cancelled, and in its place was
issued in the name of petitioners Adelfa, Cynthia and Jose Rivera. 15
10. the respondents sought the annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale on the
ground of fraud, the cancellation of the two titles and the reconveyance to them
of the entire property.
RESPONDENT’S CLAIM
1. Respondents claimed that Fidela never intended to enter into a deed of sale
at the time of its execution and that she signed the said deed on the mistaken
belief that she was merely signing copies of the Kasunduan.
2. They argued that given Fidela’s advanced age (she was then around 72 at
the time)21 and the fact that the documents were stacked one on top of the
other at the time of signing, Fidela could have easily and mistakenly
presumed that she was merely signing additional copies of the Kasunduan. 22
3. They also alleged that petitioners acquired possession of the TCT through
fraud and machination.
DEFENSE OF THE PETITIONERS
1. In their defense, petitioners denied the allegations and averred that the Deed of
Absolute Sale was validly entered into by both parties.
2. According to petitioners, Fidela del Rosario mortgaged Lot No. 1083-C to their
Mariano Rivera. But on the following day Fidela decided to sell the lot to
petitioners for P2,161,622.50.
LEGAL ISSUE:
Did the Court of Appeals correctly rule that the Deed of Absolute Sale is valid insofar as
Lot 1083-A is concerned?
RULING:
1. The SC said No, the Deed of Absolute Sale is not valid insofar as Lot 1083-A is
concerned.
2. The SC find that the said deed is void in its entirety. Because Lot No. 1083-A had
been expropriated by the government long before the Deed of Absolute Sale was
entered into.38
3. What’s more, this case involves only Lot No. 1083-C. It never involved Lot 1083-
A.
4. Respondents counter that Article 1383 of the New Civil Code applies only to
rescissible contracts enumerated under Article 1381 of the same Code, while the
cause of action in this case is for rescission of a reciprocal obligation, to which
Article 119143 of the Code applies. They assert that their cause of action had not
prescribed because the four-year prescriptive period is counted from the date of
discovery of the fraud, which, in this case, was only in 1992.
5. Rescission of reciprocal obligations under Article 1191 of the New Civil Code
should be distinguished from rescission of contracts under Article 1383 of the
same Code. Both presuppose contracts validly entered into as well as subsisting,
and both require mutual restitution when proper, nevertheless they are not
entirely identical.44
6. Article 1191 uses the term rescission, the original term used was resolution.46
Resolution is a principal action that is based on breach of a party,
7. While rescission under Article 1383 is a subsidiary action limited to cases of

rescission for lesion under Article 1381 of the New Civil Code, 47 which expressly
enumerates the following rescissible contracts:
8. ART. 1381. The following contracts are rescissible:
9. (1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they
represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things which
are the object thereof;
(2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees, if the latter suffer the
lesion stated in the preceding number;
(3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other
manner collect the claims due them;
(4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by
the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of
competent judicial authority;
(5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission.
10. Obviously, the Kasunduan does not fall under any of those situations mentioned
in Article 1381. Consequently, Article 1383 is inapplicable.

Rivera vs. Fidela Del Rosario Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rivera vs. Fidela Del Rosario Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rivera vs. Fidela Del Rosario Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

144934 January 15, 2004

ADELFA S. RIVERA, CYNTHIA S. RIVERA, and JOSE S. RIVERA, petitioners,

1. Respondents were the registered owners of a parcel of land. the children,

DEFENSE OF THE PETITIONERS

7. While rescission under Article 1383 is a subsidiary action limited to cases of

8. ART. 1381. The following contracts are rescissible:

(5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission.

You might also like