Pinoy Law Student

Your Online Source of Philippine Laws and Case Digests

SUBSCRIBE

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Capacity to Contract - Dr. Jose and Aida Yason vs. Faustino
Arciaga, et al. G.R. No. 145017

- June 05, 2019

Dr. Jose and Aida Yason vs. Faustino Arciaga, et al.

G.R. No. 145017, January 28, 2005

Facts:

Spouses Arciaga were owners of a parcel of land in Muntinlupa City covered by TCT of the Registry of
Deeds of Makati City. On March 28, 1983, they executed a Deed of Conditional Sale whereby they sold
the lot to spouses Dr. Jose and Aida Yason, petitioners. On April 19, 1983, upon payment of the balance,
spouses Arciaga executed a Deed of Absolute Sale. That day, Claudia Arciaga died.

Later in 1989, respondent’s children filed with the RTC a complaint for annulment of the land titles
against the petitioners. Respondents alleged inter alia that the Deed of Absolute Sale is void ab initio
considering that Claudia did not give her consent to the sale as she was then seriously ill, weak and
unable to talk.

On October 29, 1995, the trial court rendered a Decision dismissing respondents’ complaint and
sustaining the validity of the Deed of Conditional Sale and the Deed of Absolute Sale.

Initially, the CA affirmed the trial court’s ruling but upon respondents’ motion for reconsideration, the
CA reconsidered its decision, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale void. Hence this petition for review on
certiorari.

Issue: Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale is void as Claudia was incapacitated to enter a contract due to
advanced years and physical infirmities.

Ruling:

The petition is impressed with merit. Challenged CA decision reversed; decision of RTC dismissing
respondents’ complaint is affirmed.
A person is not incapacitated to enter into a contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of
physical infirmities, unless such age and infirmities impair his mental faculties to the extent that he is
unable to properly, intelligently and fairly understand the provisions of said contract.

Respondents 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.

It is of no moment that Claudia merely affixed her thumbmark on the document. The signature may be
made by a person's cross or mark even though he is able to read and write and is valid if the deed is in
all other respects a valid one. Significantly, there is no evidence showing that Claudia was forced or
coerced in affixing her thumbmark on the Deed of Conditional Sale.

The burden is on the respondents to prove the lack of capacity on the part of Claudia to enter into a
contract. And in proving this, they must offer clear and convincing evidence. This they failed to do.

capacity to contract case digest civil law contracts obligations and contracts

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Waiver of a Compromise Agreement - Doña Adela Export
International v. Trade and Investment Development Corporation (TIDCORP), and the Bank of the
Philippine Islands (BPI) G.R. No. 201931

- June 10, 2019

Doña Adela Export International, Inc. v. Trade and Investment Development Corporation (TIDCORP), and
the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) G.R. No. 201931, February 11, 2015 Facts: Sometime in 2006,
Doña Adela Export International, Inc., (DAEI) filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency. RTC issued an
order declaring it insolvent and staying all civil proceedings against it. Sometime in August 2011
TIDCORP and BPI as creditors of DAEI filed a Joint Motion to Approve Agreement which contained
among others a waiver of confidentiality clause wherein DAEI and the members of its Board of Directors
shall waive all rights to confidentiality provided under the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits and The
General Banking Law of 2000. The RTC approved the compromise agreement between BPI and TIDCORP.
DAEI filed a motion for partial reconsideration and claimed that TIDCORP and BPI‘s agreement imposes
on it several obligations such as payment of expenses and taxes and waiver of confidential

READ MORE
Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Compromise Agreement - Alexander Gaisano v. Benjamin Akol
G.R. No. 193840

- June 05, 2019

Alexander Gaisano v. Benjamin Akol G.R. No. 193840, June 15, 2011 Facts: Akol filed a complaint for
recovery of shares of stock against Gaisano. The RTC dismissed the complaint while the CA reversed the
decision of the RTC. While the case was pending with the SC, the parties jointly filed an Agreement to
Terminate Action duly signed by them and their respective counsels. Issue: Whether the agreement filed
by the parties allows the court to validly render judgment based on said agreement. Ruling: Yes. A
compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make reciprocal concessions, avoid litigation,
or put an end to one already commenced. Its validity depends on its fulfillment of the requisites and
principles of contracts dictated by law; its terms and conditions being not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public policy and public order. A scrutiny of the aforequoted agreement reveals it is a
compromise agreement sanctioned under Article 2028 of the Civil Cod

READ MORE

Case Digest on Obligations and Contracts: Accessory Contract - Stronghold Insurance Company Inc. v.
Spouses Rune and Lea Stroem G.R. No. 204869

- June 05, 2019

Stronghold Insurance Company Inc. v. Spouses Rune and Lea Stroem G.R. No. 204869, [January 21,
2015] Facts: Spouses Stroem entered an Owners-Contractor Agreement with Asis-Leif & Company, Inc.
(ALCI) represented by Cynthia Asis-Leif for the construction of a two-storey house on their lot. ALCI
secured a performance bond in the amount of P4.5M from Stronghold Insurance Company (SIC)
whereby the latter and ALCI bound themselves solidarily to pay the Stroem spouses the agreed amount
in the event the construction is not completed. ALCI failed to finish the project on time despite repeated
demands and the Spouses Stroem rescinded the agreement and hired an independent appraiser to
evaluate the progress of the construction project. They later filed a complaint for breach of contract
with damages against ALCI and SIC. Only SIC was served with summons. The RTC ruled in favor of the
Spouses Stroem and ordered SIC to pay damages. SIC argued that the RTC should have dismissed th

READ MORE

Powered by Blogger

Theme images by LordRunar

PINOY LAW STUDENT

VISIT PROFILE
Archive

Labels

Report Abuse