Dela Cruz Vs Dela Cruz

2/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 419
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz
*
G.R. No. 146222. January 15, 2004.
ERLINDA DELA CRUZ, PRISCILLA DE MESA,

ZENAIDA LAMBERTO, FLORA DRISKELL and
ANGELITO DELA CRUZ, petitioners, vs. FORTUNATO
DELA CRUZ, DIVINA GUTIERREZ and CLARK
GUTIERREZ, respondents.
Civil Law; Contracts; Interpretation of Contracts; As a rule,

when the terms of a contract are clear and unambiguous as to the
intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control; It is only when the words appear to
contravene the evident intention of the parties that the latter shall
prevail over the former; The real nature of a contract may be
determined from the express terms of the agreement and from the
contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties thereto.—
Petitioners’ arguments are less than persuasive, to say the least.
As a rule, when the terms of a contract are clear and
unambiguous as to the intention of the contracting parties, the
literal meaning of its stipulations shall control. It is only when the
words appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties
that the latter shall prevail over the former. The real nature of a
contract may be determined from the express terms of the
agreement and from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of
the parties thereto. When they have no intention to be bound at
all, the purported contract is absolutely simulated and void.
Hence, the parties may recover what they gave under the
simulated contract. If, on the other hand, the parties state a false
cause in the contract to conceal their real agreement, the contract
is relatively simulated and the parties’ real agreement may be
held binding between them.
Same; Same; Same; For Article 1332 to apply, it must first be
convincingly established that the illiterate or disadvantaged party
could not read or understand the language in which the contract
was written or that the contract was left unexplained to said party.
—Petitioners harp on the fact that the assailed Deed was in
English and that it was not explained to Paciencia. But we find
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168bc4e5b79c0529818003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
that the petitioners failed to prove their allegation that Pacencia

could not speak, read, or understand English. Moreover,
Paciencia’s bare testimony on this point is uncorroborated. For
Article 1332 to apply, it must first be convincingly established
that the illiterate or disadvantaged party could not read or
understand the language in which the contract was written, or
that the contract was left unexplained to said party. Petitioners
failed to discharge this burden.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
649
VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 649
Same; Land Titles; Innocent purchaser for value; A person

dealing with registered land may safely rely upon the correctness
of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way
oblige him to go behind the certificate to determine the condition of
the property; Who is deem to be an innocent purchaser for value.—
ThisKasulatan was duly executed and acknowledged before a
notary public. At the time of its execution, there was no
annotation on Fortunato’s certificate of title to indicate any
adverse claim of any third person. Only two cautionary entries
regarding Section 4, Rule 74 of the Rules of Court appear thereon.
Nothing more substantial appears in the certificate of title to
indicate a scintilla of flaw or defect in Fortunato’s title. Hence, we
cannot fairly rule that in relying upon said title, the respondent
Gutierrezes were in bad faith. A person dealing with registered
land may safely rely upon the correctness of the certificate of title
issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go behind
the certificate to determine the condition of the property. The law
considers said person as an innocent purchaser for value. An
innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property of
another, without notice that some other person has a right or
interest in such property and pays the full price for the same, at
the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claims or
interest of some other person in the property.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Mauricio Law Office for petitioners.

Ruperto J. Bustamante III for respondents.
QUISUMBING, J.:
1
This petition seeks to annul and set aside the decision of
the Court of Appeals, promulgated on September 14, 2
2000,
in CA-G.R. CV No. 53679, affirming the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 17,
dated December 14, 1995, in Civil Case No. 37-M-89. The
trial court dismissed the complaint in Civil Case No. 37-M-
89 and held that herein respondents Clark and Divina
Gutierrez are the lawful owners of the property in dispute.
Petitioners also seek to annul the appellate court’s resolu-
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 48-54. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.,

with Presiding Justice Salome A. Montoya and Associate Justice Romeo J.
Callejo, Sr., concurring.
2Id.,at pp. 26-44.
650

3
tion, dated November 28, 2000, denying their motion for
reconsideration.
As culled from the records, the following are the facts of
the case:
Paciencia dela Cruz, the original plaintiff in Civil Case
No. 37-M-89, was4 the owner of a parcel of land 5with an area
of two (2) ares and ninety (90) centares, located at
Lolomboy, Bocaue, Bulacan. Said parcel was registered in
her name under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
14.585 (M). A flea market (talipapa) with fifty or so vendors
was located on the property and Paciencia collected from
them their daily stall rentals. Paciencia had six (6)
children, namely Priscilla, Erlinda, Fortunato, Flora,
Angelita and Zenaida, all surnamed dela Cruz.
On September 25, 1980, Paciencia allegedly executed a
Deed of Sale whereby for and in consideration of P21,000,
she conveyed
6
said parcel in favor of her son, Fortunato dela
Cruz. On November 26, 1980, the Register of Deeds of
Bulacan 7
issued TCT No. T-34.723 (M) in Fortunato’s
name. Fortunato declared the property for 8
taxation
purposes and paid realty taxes due thereon. Sometime
between August 1985 to September 1988, Fortunato

mortgaged the property three (3) times to one Erlinda de9
Guzman for the sums of P25,000, P50,000 and P100,000.
Fortunato was unable to pay these loans.
On January 11, 1989, 10Fortunato executed a “Kasulatan
ng Bilihang Patuluyan” in favor of Clark and Divina
Gutierrez, the children of Claudio and Adoracion Gutierrez,
to whom he earlier offered to sell the property. The
Kasulatan alleged the purchase price to be P58,000 only
but the amount actually paid by the Gutierrezes to
Fortunato was P600,000 as evidenced 11
by a receipt showing
the true consideration for the sale. That same day, the
sale was registered, leading to the cancellation of TCT No.
T-
_______________
3Id.,at p. 56.
4 A unit of area equivalent to one hundred square meters.
5 A unit of land measure equivalent to a square meter.
6 Records, p. 396.
7 Records, Vol. II, p. 1324.
8Supra,note 6 at pp. 399-404.
9Id.,at pp. 407-409.
10Supra,note 7 at pp. 1322-1323.
11Id.,at p. 1321.
651
VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 651

34.723 (M) in the name of Fortunato. Seven days later, a

new certificate of title, TCT No. T-101 Oil (M) was issued in
the name of Clark and Divina Gutierrez. Thereafter, the
Gutierrezes took possession of the property, had the
talipapa repaired, and collected the daily stall rentals from
the vendors.
On January 20, 1989, Paciencia instituted an action for
reconveyance of property with preliminary injunction
against Fortunato and the spouses Claudio and Adoracion
Gutierrez, before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, which
docketed the complaint as Civil Case No. 37-M-89.
On February 8, 1989, the Complaint was amended to
implead Clark and Divina Gutierrez, the children of
spouses Claudio and Adoracion Gutierrez, as defendants
who had the subject property titled in their names.
In her Complaint, Paciencia alleged that sometime in

1980, her son Fortunato, took advantage of his close ties
with her to induce her to sign an instrument which
appeared to be a Deed of Sale. Paciencia alleged that
Fortunato assured her that she would remain the owner
thereof while Fortunato would hold the property in trust
for her and upon her death, all her children would share in
the property. Fortunato allegedly did not pay her any
consideration for such sale. She also claimed that she
continued to collect the daily stall rentals from the talipapa
tenants until sometime in 1986 when she fell ill and had to
be hospitalized. As a result, Fortunato took over the
collection of the rentals. After Paciencia had recovered, she
sought to resume collecting the daily rentals but upon the
plea of Fortunato who had no means of income at that time,
Paciencia allowed him to continue collecting the stall
rentals. Fortunato, however, was remiss in remitting the
daily collections to Paciencia.
Sometime in December 1988, Paciencia was shocked to
learn that Fortunato was offering the property for sale. She
then demanded that the property be reconveyed to her but
Fortunato refused to do so. Meanwhile upon learning that
Fortunato was negotiating the sale of the land with the
Gutierrez spouses, Paciencia sent her daughter, Erlinda
dela Cruz, to warn them that Paciencia owned the
property, and not Fortunato. However, the Gutierrez
couple insisted on buying the property and registered the
same in favor of their children, Divina and Clark Gutierrez.
Consequently,
652

the Gutierrezes took over the collection of stall rentals from

the tenants of the subject property.
In sum, Paciencia alleged that the sale of the property to
the Gutierrezes was null and void and fraudulently made
as Fortunato had neither right nor authority from her to
sell or convey the subject property, as he only held it in
trust for her.
In his Answer, Fortunato averred that he lawfully
acquired the subject property from Paciencia, who
absolutely conveyed the same to him, delivered to him the
owner’s duplicate of the title, and upon her instructions,
caused the registration of the property in his name.
For their part, Clark and Divina Gutierrez alleged that:

(1) the subject property was titled in the name of Fortunato
dela Cruz; (2) Fortunato was also the one collecting the
daily rentals from the market vendors; (3) Fortunato feared
he would lose the property due to his inability to pay his
mortgage indebtedness to Erlinda de Guzman; and (4) he
pleaded with them to help him, as a result of which they
turned to their parents who withdrew their lifetime savings
just to be able to buy the property. Clark and Divina
likewise alleged that Fortunato disclosed to them that
Paciencia herself did not like this instant suit as she had
already given to all her children her properties through
similar transfers.
On December 14, 1995, the trial court decided Civil Case
No. 37-M-89 in this wise:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

rendered:
1) dismissing the case and declaring defendants Clark and
Divina Gutierrez as the lawful owners of the property now
covered by TCT No. T-101011(M);
2) ordering the plaintiff to pay defendant Fortunato dela Cruz
litigation expenses of P2,000.00 and to pay the costs of the suit;
3) dismissing the counterclaim of defendants Gutierrezes for
moral damages and12attorney’s fees.
SO ORDERED.”
Paciencia then moved for reconsideration, but the trial

court denied the motion. She then interposed an appeal
with the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
53679.
_______________
12 Rollo, pp. 43-44.
653
VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 653

On January 22, 1997, Paciencia dela Cruz died and was

substituted by her children, namely: petitioners Erlinda
dela Cruz, Priscilla de Mesa y dela Cruz, Zenaida Lamberto
y dela Cruz, Flora Driskell y dela Cruz and Angelita dela
Cruz.
On September 14, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court’s decision, thus:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision in

Civil Case No. 37-M-89
13
is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.”
Herein petitioners then moved for reconsideration, but it was
denied by the appellate court.
Hence, this instant petition grounded on the following issues:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DECEASED
PACIENCIA DELA CRUZ VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED THE
DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT
DELA CRUZ.
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE RESPONDENTS
GUTIERREZES ARE BUYERS IN GOOD FAITH.
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD
SUPPORTS THE DECISION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS SUBJECT14
MATTER OF THE INSTANT PETITION
FOR REVIEW.
Simply put, we find that the core issue in this case is

whether the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the mother,
Paciencia dela Cruz, in favor of her son—respondent
Fortunato dela Cruz—is simulated and must be declared
void.
Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred in
holding that Paciencia dela Cruz, now deceased, had
voluntarily executed the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
her son, Fortunato. They fault the court a quo for failing to
appreciate the fact that the Deed was entirely and
completely written in English, a language neither known
nor understood by his mother, Paciencia. Hence, the
appellate court went against the dictates of Articles 1330
and 1332 of
_______________
13Id.,at p. 54.
14Id.,at p. 11.
654

15
the Civil Code. Petitioners stress that there is no showing
that the terms of the Deed had been fully explained to
Paciencia who allegedly executed the document.
Petitioners also contend that respondents Clark and

Divina Gutierrez are not buyers in good faith. A buyer in
good faith is one who buys a thing for value and is not
aware of any defect in the title of the seller. Their father,
Claudio Gutierrez, was the actual buyer of the subject
property, and was aware of the defect in the title of
Fortunato. Hence, Claudio could not be a buyer in good
faith. Neither could his children—respondents Clark and
Divina Gutierrez—qualify and be deemed as buyers in good
faith, since the said property was actually bought by their
father, who then caused the registration of the property in
their names.
Respondents, for their part, maintain that the Court of
Appeals did not err in affirming the trial court’s ruling that
Paciencia dela Cruz voluntarily executed the Deed of Sale
in Fortunato’s favor. They aver there was nothing amiss in
said Deed. The Gutierrezes were innocent purchasers in
good faith entitled to the full protection of the law. In order
that the purchaser of land with a Torrens title may be
considered in good faith, according to respondents, it is
enough that he examined the latest certificate of title,
which was issued in the name of the immediate transferor.
This the Gutierrezes did. Moreover, they had reason to
believe that respondent Fortunato dela Cruz’s title was free
from flaws and defects upon learning that the latter was
the one collecting the daily stall rentals from the tenants
and the fact that respondent Fortunato had mortgaged the
said property three (3) times and was then selling the
property to pay off his loans.
We find for respondents. Petitioners’ arguments are less
than persuasive, to say the least. As a rule, when the terms
of a contract are clear and unambiguous as to the intention
of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations shall control. It is only when the words appear
to contravene the evident intention of
_______________
15 Art. 1330. A contract where consent is given through mistake,

violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud is voidable. Art. 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.
655
VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 655
the parties that the latter shall prevail over the former.
The real nature of a contract may be determined from the
express terms of the agreement and from the
contemporaneous
16
and subsequent acts of the parties
thereto. When they have no intention to be bound at all,
the purported contract is absolutely simulated and void.
Hence, the parties may recover what they gave under the
simulated contract. If, on the other hand, the parties state
a false cause in the contract to conceal their real
agreement, the contract is relatively simulated and the
parties’
17
real agreement may be held binding between
them.
In the present case, it is not disputed that Paciencia dela
Cruz executed a Deed of Sale in favor of her son,
respondent Fortunato dela Cruz. However, petitioners
insist that the said document does not reflect the true
intention and agreement of the parties. According to
petitioners, Fortunato was to merely hold the property in
trust for their mother and that ownership thereof would
remain with the mother. Petitioners, however, failed to
produce even one credible witness who could categorically
testify that such was the intent of Paciencia and Fortunato.
There is nothing on record to support sufficiently
petitioners’ contention. Instead, the evidence is unclear on
whether Paciencia in her lifetime, or later the petitioners
themselves, actually asserted or attempted to assert rights
of ownership over the subject property after the alleged
sale thereof to Fortunato. The lot in dispute was thrice
mortgaged by Fortunato with nary a protest or complaint
from petitioners. When they learned that Fortunato
mortgaged the property to Erlinda de Guzman on three
occasions: August 26, 1985, April 6, 1987 and September 7,
1988, they refused to redeem the property. They reasoned
that if they would redeem the property and pay the debts of 18
Fortunato, the property would merely return to him.
Indeed, how could Fortunato have thrice obtained a
mortgage over the property, without having dominion over
it? Fortunato declared the property in his name for
taxation purposes and paid the realty taxes, without any
protest from Paciencia or petitioners. His actions are
contrary to petitioners’ allegation that the parties never
_______________
16 Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 147788, 19 March

2002, 379 SCRA 490.
17 Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136857, 22 November 2000,

345 SCRA 468, 473.
18 Records, Vol. II, pp. 785-788.
656

intended to be bound by the assailed contract. Tax receipts

and declaration of ownership for taxation purposes are
strong evidence of ownership. It has been ruled that
although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not
conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are
good indiciaof possession in the concept of owner for no one
in his right mind will be paying taxes for a 19property that is
not in his actual or constructive possession.
As the Court of Appeals well observed, for nine (9) years,
Paciencia allowed Fortunato to benefit from the property.
It was only when she learned of its impending sale to the
Gutierrez spouses, that she took action to forestall the
transfer of the property to a third person. She then caused
the annotation of her adverse claim on the certificate of
title on the same day the deed in favor of the Gutierrez
children was registered. This was rather belated, for the
deed was already done.
Petitioners harp on the fact that the assailed Deed was
in English and that it was not explained to Paciencia. But
we find that the petitioners failed to prove their allegation
that Pacencia could not speak, read, or understand 20
English. Moreover, Paciencia’s bare testimony on this
point is uncorroborated. For Article 1332 to apply, it must
first be convincingly established that the illiterate or
disadvantaged party could not read or understand 21
the
language in which the contract was written, or that the
contract was left unexplained to said party. Petitioners
failed to discharge this burden.
The Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 25, 1980
was duly acknowledged before a notary public. As a
notarized document, it has in its favor the presumption of
regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred
upon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity
22
and is
entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
Coming now to whether the Gutierrezes were buyers in
good faith, we note that both the trial and appellate courts
found that
_______________
19 Sps. Alcaraz v. Tangga-an, G.R. No. 128568, 9 April 2003, 401 SCRA
84.
20 Records, Vol. II, p. 845.
21 Heirs of Enrique Zambales v. Court of Appeals, No. L-54070, 28
February 1983, 120 SCRA 897, 904.
22 Mendezona v. Ozamiz, G.R No. 143370, 6 February 2002, 376 SCRA
482, 496.
657
VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 657

when Fortunato executed the “Kasulatan ng Bilihang

Patuluyan” on January 11, 1989 in favor of respondents
Clark and Divina Gutierrez, the name of the registered
owner appearing in the certificate of title was that of
Fortunato dela Cruz. This Kasulatan was duly executed
and acknowledged before a notary public. At the time of its
execution, there was no annotation on Fortunato’s
certificate of title to indicate any adverse claim of any third
23
person. Only two cautionary entries regarding Section 4,
Rule 74 of the Rules of Court appear thereon. Nothing
more substantial appears in the certificate of title to
indicate a scintilla of flaw or defect in Fortunato’s title.
Hence, we cannot fairly rule that in relying upon said title,
the respondent Gutierrezes were in bad faith. A person
dealing with registered land may safely rely upon the
correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the
law will in no way oblige him to go behind the certificate to
determine the condition of the property. The law considers
said person as an innocent purchaser for value. An
innocent purchaser for value is one who buys the property
of another, without notice that some other person has a
right or interest in such property and pays the full price for
the same, at the time of such purchase or before he has
notice of 24
the claims or interest of some other person in the
property.
_______________
23 SEC. 4. Liability of distributees and estate.—If it shall appear at any

time within two (2) years after the settlement and distribution of an estate
in accordance with the provisions of either of the first two sections of this
rule, that an heir or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful
participation in the estate, such heir or such other person may compel the
settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided

for the purpose of satisfying such lawful participation. And if within the
same time of two (2) years, it shall appear that there are debts
outstanding against the estate which have not been paid, or that an heir
or other person has been unduly deprived of his lawful participation
payable in money, the court having jurisdiction of the estate may, by order
for that purpose, after hearing, settle the amount of such debts or lawful
participation and order how much and in what manner each distributee
shall contribute in the payment thereof, and may issue execution, if
circumstances require, against the bond provided in the preceding section
or against the real estate belonging to the deceased, or both. Such bond
and such real estate shall remain charged with a liability to creditors,
heirs, or other persons for the full period of two (2) years after such
distribution, notwithstanding any transfers of real estate that may have
been made.
24 Chu, Sr. v. Benelda Estate Development Corporation, G.R. No.
142313, 1 March 2001, 353 SCRA 424, 430.
658

We note, furthermore, that the Gutierrezes did not simply

rely upon the face of Fortunato’s Certificate of Title to the
property. They also employed the services of counsel Atty.
Crisanta Abarrientos, who verified the title with the
Registry of Deeds. Thus, they took all the necessary
precautions to ascertain the true ownership of the property,
even engaging the services of legal counsel for that specific
purpose, and it was only after said counsel assured them
that everything was in order did they finalize the
arrangements to purchase the property. Hence, we
entertain no doubt that the respondent 25
Gutierrezes were
purchasers for value and in good faith.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack
of merit. The assailed decision dated September 14, 2000 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53679, which
sustained the decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 17, dated December 14, 1995, in
Civil Case No. 37-M-89, as well as the appellate court’s
resolution of November 28, 2000, is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Tinga,

JJ., concur.
Callejo, Sr., J., No part.
Petition denied assailed judgment and resolution

affirmed.
Note.—While it is true that contracts are respected as

the law between the contracting parties, this principle is
tempered by the rule that the intention of the parties is
primordial. (Golden Diamond, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals,
332 SCRA 605 [2000])
——o0o——
_______________
25 See Heirs of Sps. Benito v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 686, 696-699;
291 SCRA 495 (1998).
659
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dela Cruz Vs Dela Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dela Cruz Vs Dela Cruz

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Dela Cruz Vs Dela Cruz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/5/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 419

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ERLINDA DELA CRUZ, PRISCILLA DE MESA,

Civil Law; Contracts; Interpretation of Contracts; As a rule,

that the petitioners failed to prove their allegation that Pacencia

VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 649

Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz

Same; Land Titles; Innocent purchaser for value; A person

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Mauricio Law Office for petitioners.

1 Rollo, pp. 48-54. Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.,

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

between August 1985 to September 1988, Fortunato

VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 651

34.723 (M) in the name of Fortunato. Seven days later, a

In her Complaint, Paciencia alleged that sometime in

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the Gutierrezes took over the collection of stall rentals from

For their part, Clark and Divina Gutierrez alleged that:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby

Paciencia then moved for reconsideration, but the trial

12 Rollo, pp. 43-44.

VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 653

On January 22, 1997, Paciencia dela Cruz died and was

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision in

Simply put, we find that the core issue in this case is

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Petitioners also contend that respondents Clark and

15 Art. 1330. A contract where consent is given through mistake,

VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 655

Dela Cruz vs. Dela Cruz

16 Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 147788, 19 March

17 Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136857, 22 November 2000,

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

intended to be bound by the assailed contract. Tax receipts

VOL. 419, JANUARY 15, 2004 657

when Fortunato executed the “Kasulatan ng Bilihang

23 SEC. 4. Liability of distributees and estate.—If it shall appear at any

settlement of the estate in the courts in the manner hereinafter provided

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

We note, furthermore, that the Gutierrezes did not simply

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Tinga,

Petition denied assailed judgment and resolution

Note.—While it is true that contracts are respected as

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like