Francisco Vs Herrera

JULIAN FRANCISCO (Substituted by his When petitioner refused, herein respondent
Heirs, namely: CARLOS ALTEA Herrera then filed a complaint for

FRANCISCO; annulment of sale, with the RTC of
the heirs of late ARCADIO FRANCISCO, Antipolo City.
namely: CONCHITA SALANGSANG-
FRANCISCO (surviving spouse), In his complaint, respondent claimed
and his children namely: TEODULO S. ownership over the second parcel, which is
FRANCISCO, EMILIANO S. FRANCISCO, the lot covered by TD No. 01-00497,
MARIA THERESA S. FRANCISCO, allegedly by virtue of a sale in his favor since
PAULINA S. FRANCISCO, THOMAS S. 1973. He likewise claimed that the first
FRANCISCO; parcel, the lot covered by TD No. 01-00495,
PEDRO ALTEA FRANCISCO; CARINA was subject to the co-ownership of the
FRANCISCO-ALCANTARA; EFREN ALTEA surviving heirs of Francisca A. Herrera, the
FRANCISCO; DOMINGA LEA FRANCISCO- wife of Eligio, Sr., considering that she died
REGONDON; intestate on April 2, 1990, before the alleged
BENEDICTO ALTEA FRANCISCO and sale to petitioner.
ANTONIO ALTEA FRANCISCO), petitioner,
Finally, respondent also alleged that the
vs. sale of the two lots was null and void on
PASTOR HERRERA, respondent the ground that at the time of sale,
Eligio, Sr. was already incapacitated to
give consent to a contract because he was
already afflicted with senile dementia,
Facts: characterized by deteriorating mental and
physical condition including loss of memory.
Eligio Herrera, Sr., the father of respondent,
was the owner of two parcels of land, Answer of Francisco:
1 -- consisting of 500 sq. m. In his answer, petitioner as defendant below

alleged that respondent was estopped
2 -- consisting of 451 sq. m., from assailing the sale of the lots.
Petitioner contended that respondent had
covered by Tax Declaration (TD). Both were effectively ratified both contracts of sales, by
located at Barangay San Andres, Cainta, receiving the consideration offered in each
Rizal.3 transaction.
Petitioner Julian Francisco bought from said RTC Ruling:

landowner the first parcel, covered by TD,
for the price of P1M, paid in installments. 1. The deeds of sale of the properties
covered are declared null and void;
Then he bought the second parcel covered
by TD for P750K. 2. The defendant is to return the lots
in question including all improvements
Contention of Herrera: thereon to the RESPONDENT HERRERA
and the plaintiff FRANCISCO is
Contending that the contract price for the ordered to simultaneously return to
two parcels of land was grossly the defendant the purchase price of
inadequate, the children of Eligio, Sr., the lots sold totalling to P750,000.00
namely, Josefina Cavestany, Eligio Herrera, and P1,000,000.00
Jr., and respondent Pastor Herrera, tried to
negotiate with petitioner to increase the Petitioner then elevated the matter to the
purchase price. Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 47869.
On August 30, 1999, however, the
appellate court affirmed the decision of An annullable contract may be rendered
the Regional Trial Court, thus:in toto. perfectly valid by ratification, which can
Costs against defendant-appellant. be express or implied.
ISSUE:Whether the assailed contracts of Implied ratification may take the form of
sale void or merely voidable and hence accepting and retaining the benefits of a
capable of being ratified? contract.
RULING: The 2 contract of sale is As in this case, respondent negotiated for

declared valid. the increase of the purchase price while
receiving the installment payments from the
A void or inexistent contract is one which has petitioner. Clearly, respondent was
no force and effect from the very beginning. agreeable to the contract.
Hence, it is as if it has never been entered
into and cannot be validated either by the Further, there is no showing that respondent
passage of time or by ratification. There are returned the payments or made an offer to
two types of void contracts: (1) those where do so. This bolsters the view that indeed
one of the essential requisites of a valid there was ratification.
contract as provided for by Article 1318 10 of
the Civil Code is totally wanting; and (2) Nor can we find for respondent’s argument
those declared to be so under Article 1409 11 that the contracts were void as Eligio, Sr.,
of the Civil Code. could not sell the lots in question as one of
the properties had already been sold to him,
By contrast, a voidable or annullable contract while the other was the subject of a co-
is one in which the essential requisites for ownership among the heirs of the deceased
validity under Article 1318 are present, but wife of Eligio, Sr.
vitiated by want of capacity, error, violence,
intimidation, undue influence, or deceit. Note that it was found by both the trial court
and the Court of Appeals that Eligio, Sr., was
Article 1318 of the Civil Code states that no the "declared owner" of said lots. This
contract exists unless there is a concurrence finding is conclusive on us. As declared
of consent of the parties, object certain as owner of said parcels of land, it follows that
subject matter, and cause of the obligation Eligio, Sr., had the right to transfer the
established. ownership thereof under the principle of jus
disponendi.
Article 1327 provides that insane or
demented persons cannot give consent to a
contract. But, if an insane or demented
person does enter into a contract, the
legal effect is that the contract is
voidable or annullable as specifically
provided in Article 1390.1
In the present case, vendor Eligio, Sr.

entered into an agreement with petitioner,
but that the former’s capacity to consent was
vitiated by senile dementia.
Hence, it was ruled that the assailed

contracts are not void or inexistent per se;
rather, these are contracts that are valid and
binding unless annulled through a proper
action filed in court.

Francisco Vs Herrera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Francisco Vs Herrera

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

Francisco Vs Herrera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JULIAN FRANCISCO (Substituted by his When petitioner refused, herein respondent

Heirs, namely: CARLOS ALTEA Herrera then filed a complaint for

1 -- consisting of 500 sq. m. In his answer, petitioner as defendant below

Petitioner Julian Francisco bought from said RTC Ruling:

RULING: The 2 contract of sale is As in this case, respondent negotiated for

In the present case, vendor Eligio, Sr.

Hence, it was ruled that the assailed

You might also like