34 Emilio V Rapal (SUNGCAD)

34 Emilio v. Rapal (Gabbi) 3.
In 1996, petitioner borrowed P10k from respondent, to which the

March 30, 2010 | Carpio-Morales | Disputable Presumption respondent offered an additional loan of P60k on the condition that she
doesn’t have to pay rent from Feb 96 to December 98. (basically the total
P70k given by respondent to petitioner would serve as advance rentals)
Petitioner: Flordeliza Emilio 4. Atty. Balao-Ga of the PAO notarized a document entitled “Sale and
Respondents: Bilma Rapal transfer of Rights over a portion of a parcel of land” executed by the
petitioner in favor of respondent over the 27sqm area with the house on it
SUMMARY: Emilio is the owner of a 196 sqm lot. She built a house on a 27sqm for P90k.
portion of the lot which she leased to Rapal. In 1996, Emilio borrowed P10k from 5. The petitioner later claimed that though she DID sign the deed of sale, the
Rapa, to Rapal offered to extend a loan to Emilio in the amount of P70k( (the P10k contents had not been explained to her. So she filed a complaint on July
included) as an advance payment of rentals. Later, a PAO lawyer notarized a 11, 2002, claiming that the document should be reformed because she
deed of sale executed by Emilio of the 27spm portion in favor of Rapal for a had no intention to sell the portion of her property since she could not do
consideration of P90k. Emilio later filed a complaint for reformation with the RTC so without the consent of the NHA. (Note: I think akala niya mortage yung
and claimed that she did sign the deed, but the contents were not explained to sinign niya cuz of the loan given to her. This wasn’t explicit in the case,
her. She claimed that she never intended to sell the portion as she needs the but I pieced it together from the ratio)
consent of the NHA. The RTC granted this petition, but the CA reversed it stating 6. Respondent moved to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action
that Emilio was not able to discharge the burden of proving the fraud that warrants and prescription. Stating that though the action was denominated as that
the reformation. Upon the MR, Emilio’s daughter submitted a document claiming for reformation, it was actually one for annulment of the contract which
that “from what she knows” her mother could not understand english, and she had was executed in 1996. Since the action had been filed in 2002, it had
no intention to sell the portion of the lot to Rapal. The CA denied the MR. already prescribed.
7. The RTC denied respondent’s MTD and declared them in default for filing
ISSUE: W/N petitioner was able to discharge the burden of proving the fraud their answer way out of time (yes, this is verbatim). The RTC allowed the
necessary to warrant the reformation of the instrument? – Hell NO. petitioner to present evidence ex parte.
8. In 2005, the RTC ruled in favor of the Petitioner declaring the sale to be
In an action for reformation, proving mistake, fraud, or accident caused the null and void since the document did not represent the true intention of the
instrument to not express the true intentions is necessary. Notarized documents parties.
enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned by clear and 9. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision stating that although the action
convincing evidence (not just preponderance). The petitioner failed to discharge for reformation had not yet prescribed, the petitioner had failed to
such burden. The document of the petitioner’s daughter was submitted only upon discharge the burden of proving that fraud attended the instruments
motion of reconsideration and is not procedurally in order. It does not convince. execution which would warrant the reformation. The appellate court also
Moreover, it is merely heresay due to her “what I know” statements. disregarded petitioner’s claim that she did not understand the contents of
the deed, since there was no proof that she did not know how to read or
DOCTRINE: The onus probandi is upon the party who insists that the contract write or the deed was written in a language not known to her.
should be reformed. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity 10. During the MR, the petitioner’s daughter executed a document stating that
which can be overturned by clear and convincing evidence (not just “from what she knows, her mother did not finish elementary and could not
preponderance). understand english well, and from what she knows, her mother never
intended to sell the property to respondent.”
FACTS: (Short case, but I made it detailed cuz IDK how sir asks questions for 11. The MR was denied, hence this appeal.
cases, relevant facts to the ratio start at Fact #4) 12. The Respondent contended that petitioner could understand the
1. Flordeliza Emilio (petitioner) became the owner of a parcel of land by document given that all her pleadings were in english and that she
virtue of a grant by the NHA. The land was 196 sqm. She built a house on testified to understanding them, as well as testifying in court in English as
the land with an area of 27sqm. seen in the stenographic notes.
2. Respondent, Rapal had been leasing a portion of the house since 1989. In
1993, she leased the adjoining room.
ISSUE/S:
1
1. W/N petitioner discharged the burden of proving fraud which would
warrant a reformation of the document? - NO
RATIO:
1. For an action of reformation to prosper there must be 3 requisites:
meeting of the minds, the instrument does not express the true intention of
the parties, and such is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable conduct, or
accident.
2. Since the petitioner admits that she signed the deed, all that is left to
prove is whether the contract expressed the true intention of the parties,
and if not, whether such failure is due to mistake, fraud, inequitable
conduct of accident. The onus probandi is upon the party who insists that
the contract should be reformed
3. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can
be overturned by clear and convincing evidence (not just
preponderance).
4. The petitioner failed to discharge such burden. The document of the
petitioner’s daughter was submitted only upon motion of reconsideration
and is not procedurally in order. It does not convince. Moreover, it is
merely heresay due to her “what I know” statements.
5. Petitioner could have presented the PAO lawyer to substantiate her claim
but failed to do so. What makes matters worse for the petitioner is that
PAO lawyer in a certification in 2006 stated that the deed was of a sale
and not of a mortgage.
DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED.

34 Emilio V Rapal (SUNGCAD)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

34 Emilio V Rapal (SUNGCAD)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

34 Emilio v. Rapal (Gabbi) 3.

In 1996, petitioner borrowed P10k from respondent, to which the

DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED.

You might also like