This document summarizes a court case between Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals. It discusses how Justa Kausapin, who was 80 years old at the time and dependent on her stepson Enrique Hemedes, may have been easily influenced by him to donate her property to him. It also notes that a witness for the private respondents was biased. Finally, it says the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying a deed of conveyance for failure to comply with Article 1332 of the Civil Code, as that article is intended to protect disadvantaged parties who may have been misled, which was not the situation in this case.
This document summarizes a court case between Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals. It discusses how Justa Kausapin, who was 80 years old at the time and dependent on her stepson Enrique Hemedes, may have been easily influenced by him to donate her property to him. It also notes that a witness for the private respondents was biased. Finally, it says the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying a deed of conveyance for failure to comply with Article 1332 of the Civil Code, as that article is intended to protect disadvantaged parties who may have been misled, which was not the situation in this case.
This document summarizes a court case between Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals. It discusses how Justa Kausapin, who was 80 years old at the time and dependent on her stepson Enrique Hemedes, may have been easily influenced by him to donate her property to him. It also notes that a witness for the private respondents was biased. Finally, it says the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying a deed of conveyance for failure to comply with Article 1332 of the Civil Code, as that article is intended to protect disadvantaged parties who may have been misled, which was not the situation in this case.
This document summarizes a court case between Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals. It discusses how Justa Kausapin, who was 80 years old at the time and dependent on her stepson Enrique Hemedes, may have been easily influenced by him to donate her property to him. It also notes that a witness for the private respondents was biased. Finally, it says the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying a deed of conveyance for failure to comply with Article 1332 of the Civil Code, as that article is intended to protect disadvantaged parties who may have been misled, which was not the situation in this case.
sent case was filed in the trial court in 1981, Justa Kausapin was already 80 years old, suffering from worsening physical infirmities and completely dependent upon her stepson Enrique D. Hemedes for support. It is apparent that Enrique D. Hemedes could easily have influenced his aging stepmother to donate the subject property to him. Public respondent should not have given credence to a witness that was obviously biased and partial to the cause of private respondents. Although it is a wellestablished rule that the matter of credibility lies within the province of the trial court, such rule does not apply when the witness credibility has been put in serious doubt, such as when there appears on the record some fact or circumstance of weight and influence, which has been overlooked or 22 the significance of which has been misinterpreted. Finally, public respondent was in error when it sustained the trial courts decision to nullify the Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real Property by Reversion for failure of Maxima Hemedes to comply with article 1332 of the Civil Code, which states: 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.
Article 1332 was intended for the protection of a party to a
contract who is at a disadvantage due to his illiteracy, 23 ignorance, mental weakness or other handicap. This article contemplates a situation wherein a contract has been entered into, but the consent of one of the parties is vitiated by mistake or fraud committed by the other 24 contracting party. This is apparent from the ordering of the provisions under Book _______________ 22
People vs. Subido, 253 SCRA 196 (1996), citing People vs. Aguilar,
222 SCRA 394 (1993).
23
Bunyi vs. Reyes, 39 SCRA 504 (1971), citing the Report of the Code