G.R. No. 183852 October 20, 2010CARMELA BROBIO MANGAHAS,
EUFROCINA A. BROBIO,
Pacifico died and left 3 parcels of land. He was survived by his wife, Eufrocina, 4legit and 3 illegit children. Carmela is one of the illegitimate children. The heirsexecuted a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Waiver. In the Deed,Carmela and the other children, in consideration of their love and affection forEufrocina and the sum of P150k waived their shares over the land in favor of Eufrocina. According to Carmela, Eufrocina promised to give her an additionalamount for her share in her father’s estate. After the signing of the Deed, Carmelademanded from Eufrocina the promised additional amount, but Eufrocina refused topay.Later, Eufrocina needed an original copy of the Deed for submission to the BIR. Shedidn’t have a copy anymore so she asked Carmela to countersign a copy of theDeed. Carmela refused, demanding that Eufrocina first give her the additionalamount that she promised. Carmela asked for P1M, but Eufrocina begged her tolower the amount. Carmela agreed to lower it to P600k. Because Eufrocina did nothave the money at that time, Eufrocina executed a promissory note.Upon maturity of the PN, Eufrocina failed and refused to pay despite severaldemands so Carmela filed a complaint with the RTC. Eufrocina alleged that shewas practically held "hostage" by the demand of Carmela because at that time,Eufrocina was so much pressured to submit the documents to the BIR. She(Eufrocina) also claimed that the circumstances in the execution of the promissorynote were obviously attended by involuntariness and the same was issued withoutconsideration at all or for illegal consideration. The RTC ruled in favor of Carmela. The CA reversed the RTC decision because therewas a complete absence of consideration in the execution of the promissory note,which made it inexistent and without any legal force and effect. The court notedthat "financial assistance" was not the real reason why Eufrocina executed thepromissory note, but only to secure Carmela’s signature. The CA held that thewaiver of Carmela’s share in the properties may not be considered as theconsideration of the promissory note, considering that Carmela signed the Deedway back in 2002 and she had already received the consideration of P150k forsigning the same. The CA also found that intimidation attended the signing of thepromissory note. Eufrocina needed the Deed countersigned by Carmela in order tocomply with a BIR requirement so Eufrocina was forced to sign the promissory noteto assure Carmela that the money promised to her would be paid.