CASE DIGEST: Cruz et.al v. Cruz et.al ; G.R. No. 211153 ; 28 February 2018

Cruz et.al v. Cruz et.al

G.R. No. 211153

February 28, 2018

Del Castillo, J.:

 

Doctrines: An action for declaration of nullity of the defective deed of extrajudicial settlement does not prescribe considering that the deed is total nullity.

 

Facts:

Amparo, Antonia and Concepcion inherited a parcel of land from their parents. Thus, they executed a deed extra-judicial settlement providing that each heir will receive an equal portion of the subject property.

However, when the subject property was subdivided, the Respondents discovered that one of the heirs (Antonia) was allocated 2 lots against one (1) each of the Respondent. Which is in contravention of their agreement.

Thus, Respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of the extra-judicial settlement executed by the parties since Amparo and Antonio were able to perpetrate the fraud by inducing Concepcion. Considering the latter was illiterate to sign the subject deed which is written in English. However, the petitioners contended that the deed was voluntarily and freely executed by the parties, free from vitiated consent. Moreover, the Respondent’s cause of action has prescribed already.

 

However, the RTC dismissed the petition since fraud was not proven. Further, the deed is deemed perfected once mutual consent is manifested.

 

On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC’s ruling and set aside the subject deed. It held that Concepcion clearly denied any knowledge of the import and implication of the subject document she signed. only finished Grade 3, was not in a position to give her free, voluntary and spontaneous consent without having the document, which was in English, explained to her in the Pilipino. She stated in open court that she did not understand English. Her testimony as quoted above is instructive. Thus, the applicable prescriptive period to institute the action to annul the deed of extrajudicial settlement was four (4) years counted from the discovery of fraud. Hence, the action has not prescribed.

 

Petitioners moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

 

Issue: Whether or not the deed of extrajudicial settlement is null and void thus action for the declaration of nullity of such is imprescriptible?

 

Ruling: Yes. The deed of extrajudicial settlement is invalid thus the action to have it annulled does not prescribe.

 

The Supreme Court explained that while the CA was correct in ruling in favor of Concepcion and setting aside the subject deed of extrajudicial settlement, it erred in appreciating and ruling that the case involved fraud - thus applying the four-year prescriptive period. When it should have simply held that the action for the declaration of nullity of the defective deed of extrajudicial settlement does not prescribe, under the circumstances, given that the same was a total nullity.

 

Clearly, the issue of literacy is relevant to the extent that Concepcion was effectively deprived of her true inheritance, and not so much that she was defrauded.