8/12/2019 De La Cruz vs Capinpin -Evidence

1/2

G.R. No. L-12712 August 21, 1918

JOSEFA DE LA CRUZ,plaintiff-appellant, vs. GELASIO CAPINPIN andJULIANA ALBEA, defendants-appellants

Facts:

An action was instituted for recovery of rent for use of three parcels of landand 774 cavans of palay. Defendants alleged that the land was sold under pactode retro and they indeed repurchased the land. And because of the repurchase,they have been relieved from the payment of the palay. In virtue of the evidencepresented, the Judge concluded that (a) That the plaintiff had rented threeparcels of land to the defendants, composed of 27, 20 and 5 hectares,respectively, for the amount of 774 cavanesof palay, payable annually; (b) thatby virtue of a subsequent agreement, the defendants had been relieved from thepayment of the rent upon the parcel composed of 27 hectares, but were still

under obligation to pay the rent upon the other two parcels composed of 20 and5 hectares, respectively, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff andagainst the defendants for the amount of 372 cavanes, 2 gantas, and 7 chupasofpalay, and that the value of each cavan was P2.75. From that judgment each ofthe respective parties appealed to this court.

These facts are not disputed:

May 11, 1911 Albea sold the land to Enriquez under pacto de retro for 3000with privilege to repurchase it in 2 years

May 20, 1911 Albea borrowed an additional sum of 2000 and issued another

pacto de retro with right to repurchase until March 11, 2013

May 1, 1914 the right to repurchase was lost by Albea and Enriquez sold theland to de la Cruz for 5000

May, 19 1914, Albea and Capinpin sold to de la Cruz two parcels of land 20and 5 hectares with right to repurchase in one year.

May 19, 1914 de la Cruz became the absolute owner and entered into acontract of rent with Albea and Capinpin for the use of the said lands and by

virtue of which they promised to pay for the use of lands 774 cavans of palay

annually. This agreement was ratified In a notary public.

During trial defendants attempted to show by oral and documentary evidence

that they have been relieved by the obligation to pay with the fact that de la Cruz

repurchased it for 5000.

Exhibit 1 was signed by de la Cruz and exhibit 2 was ratified by notary public. De

la Cruz however alleged that she signed the documents since the defendants said

that the previous ones have been destroyed. She further alleged that she could

not read and right. When Balino was presented as witness, he mentioned that he

did not see de la Cruz sign the documents. In addition, which strongly indicates

that de la Cruz did not intend to sign the documents, an examination of exhibits

8/12/2019 De La Cruz vs Capinpin -Evidence

2/2

themselves furnish corroborative proof of the fact. In the first place, Exhibit 2recites that Juliana Albea had sold to Josefa de la Cruz, under a pacto deretro, for the sum of P5,000 a parcel of land, and that said pacto de retrohadbeen signed and acknowledged before Miguel Lugo, a notary public; thatJuliana Albea had rented said parcel of land from Josefa de la Cruz for the

amount of 774 cavanesof palay, to be paid annually; that said quantity ofpalay was payable in the month of May each year. Those facts are set out inExhibit 2. There is no proof whatever in the record that Juliana Albea had soldto Josefa de la Cruz any parcel of land whatever for the sum of P5,000; and,furthermore, there is no proof in the record that any contract had ever beenexecuted between them before the notary public, Miguel Lugo. Exhibit 1 alsocontains misrecitals of fact. Exhibit 1 recites that Josefa de la Cruz hadreceived from Juliana Albea the sum of P5,000 in the repurchase of saidparcel of 27 hectares, while there is no proof whatever in the record thatJosefa de la Cruz had purchased said parcel of land from Juliana Albea. Onthe contrary, the proof shows positively, by Exhibit D, that Josefa de la Cruz

had purchased said parcel, composed of 27 hectares, from VictorianaEnriquez.

Issue: WON there was fraud on the part of Albea and Capinpin.

Held:

Yes. We are fully persuaded from the facts contained in the record thatJosefa de la Cruz did not intend to sign Exhibits 1 and 2, and would not havesigned them had she known their purport and contents; that she was induced tosign said exhibits were executed and delivered to take the place of Exhibit A,which the defendants claimed had been destroyed. The defendants having taken

advantage of the age and ignorance of Josefa de la Cruz, and having inducedher, by means of false and fraudulent representations, to sign a contract differentfrom that she intended to sign, is sufficient in law and fact to justify the courts infurnishing relief against the effect and operation of such a contract.

It may be proved by parol evidence that a contract was fraudulently misread toone not able to read, and that he was thus induced to give his signature; andwhen such facts are fully established, the contract should be annulled and setaside. (MsKessons vs.Sherman, 51 Wis., 303; Kranich vs.Sherwood, 92 Mich.,397.)