DR.

JOSE and AIDA YASON vs FAUSTINO ARCIAGA, FELIPE NERI ARCIAGA,

DOMINGO ARCIAGA, and ROGELIO ARCIAGA
TOPIC: Consent

KEYWORD(S): forged deed, thumbmark, Claudia died

Facts:

- Spouses Arciaga were owners of the lot 303 situated in Muntinlupa City covered in
the Registry of Deeds of Makati City.

- The spouses executed a Deed of Conditional Sale of lot 303 for ₱265,000.00 to
Spouses Yason, petitioners.

- When Spouses Yason paid the balance, Spouses Arciaga executed a Deed of
Absolute Sale. That day, Mrs. Arciaga died.

- She was survived by Mr. Arciaga and their six (6) children.

- Spouses Yason entrusted the registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale to one Jesus
Medina.

- Without the knowledge of spouses Yason, Medina falsified the Deed of Absolute
Sale and had the document registered in the Registry of Deeds of Makati City.

- Medina manipulated the sale to take place on a different date and for a different price.

- Later, Spouses Yason subdivided lot 303 into 23 smaller lots and sold it except for 13
lots.

- Fast forward, Spouses Arciaga’s children learned of the falsified document of sale,
so they filed a complaint for falsification of documents against Spouses Yason who
again entrusted it to Medina and Medina falsified it without Yasons’ knowledge.

- The Provincial Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for falsification for lack of probable
cause.

- Respondent Arciaga children filed with RTC a complaint for annulment of the 13
land titles, mentioned earlier, against Spouses Yason.
 - Arciaga children alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale is void ab initio because:

(1) The deceased mom, Claudia Arciaga did not give her consent to the sale as she
was then seriously ill, weak, and unable to talk and
(2) Jesus Medina falsified the Deed of Absolute Sale

- trial court dismissed the complaint again.

- CA eventually reversed the decision of RTC.

“There is no evidence showing that said Deed of Absolute Sale covering the
subject property was ever executed by the parties. The appellees themselves who
were supposedly the vendees did not even know of the existence of such sale.”

The controversy in the deeds is the date of the Absolute Deed of Sale which coincides with
the date of the death of Mrs. Arciaga.
Also intriguing is the fact that only a thumbmark and not a signature of Mrs. Arciaga was
affixed on the supposed deeds, when in fact she could definitely read and write.

ISSUE/S RELATED TO THE TOPIC:

1. Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale is void for lack of consent on the part of Mrs.
Arciaga? In other words, whether Mrs. Arciaga voluntarily affixed her
thumbmark.

Not void. Yes thumbmark. The Deed of Absolute Sale is valid.

Petitioner’s Argument (Yason sps) Respondent’s Argument (Arciaga children)

- Spouses Yason averred that they - The Deed of Absolute Sale is void ab
validly acquired the property by initio :
virtue of the notarized Deed of (1) Claudia Arciaga did not give her
Conditional Sale and the Deed of consent to the sale as she was then
Absolute Sale executed by Spouses seriously ill, weak, and unable to talk
Arciaga. and
(2) Jesus Medina falsified the Deed of
- The Deed of Absolute Sale was duly Absolute Sale; that without Claudia’s
signed by the parties when Claudia consent, the contract is void; and that
was still alive. It was in the evening the 13 land titles are also void because
 of the same day when she died. a forged deed conveys no title.
Hence, the contract of sale is valid.
- Claimed that their mother Claudia
- Furthermore, Spouses Yason have no Rivera never gave her consent to the
participation in the falsification of sale.
the Deed of Absolute Sale by Medina. The thumbmark of Mrs. Arciaga
In fact, they exerted efforts to locate was fixed on the Deed of
him but to no avail. Conditional Sale when she was
already dead.
- Claudia voluntarily affixed her
thumbmark on the Deeds of
Conditional and Absolute Sale

RULING:

Essential requisites of a contract

In determining whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 19, 1983 is valid, it must
contain the essential requisites of contracts, viz: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2)
object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the obligation which
is established.

Consent is at issue
A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing
which is the object of the contract and upon the price. Consent is manifested by the meeting of
the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the
contract. To enter into a valid legal agreement, the parties must have the capacity to do so.

Arciaga children failed to show that Claudia was deprived of reason or that her
condition hindered her from freely exercising her own will at the time of the execution of
the Deed of Conditional Sale.

They also failed to prove that she could no longer understand the terms of the contract and that
she did not affix her thumbmark thereon.

Mere weakness of mind alone, without imposition of fraud, is not a ground for vacating a
contract. They should have certified it through a doctor’s testimony.

When can intellectual capacity be considered to rescind

Only if there is unfairness in the transaction, such as gross inadequacy of consideration, the
low degree of intellectual capacity of the party, may be taken into consideration for the
purpose of showing such fraud as will afford a ground for annulling a contract.

The law presumes capacity

The law presumes that every person is fully competent to enter into a contract until
satisfactory proof to the contrary is presented. The burden of proof is on the individual
asserting a lack of capacity to contract, and this burden has been characterized as requiring
for its satisfaction clear and convincing evidence.

The Court is convinced and so hold that there was consent on the part of Claudia Arciaga
when she executed the Conditional Deed of Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale being assailed
by respondents. These documents, therefore, are valid.

FALLO:

WHEREFORE, the challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 55668
is REVERSED. The Decision of the RTC, Branch 62, Makati City dismissing respondents’
complaint is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.