LEONARDO v.
CA
Topic: Illiteracy/Unknown Language; Art. 1332;
DOCTRINE:
Art. 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if
the contract is in a language not understood by him, and
mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract
must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained
to the former.
SHORT ANSWERS:
1. Who is chasing who: Leonardo was chasing the
Sebastians
2. Where did the problem start: When private
respondents went o petitioners house to persuade
her to sign a deed of extrajudicial partition
3. What is the contract in question: Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition
FACTS:
Petitioner Restituta Leonardo is the only legitimate
child of the late spouses Tomasina Paul and Balbino
Leonardo.
While private respondents Teodoro, Victor, Corazon,
Piedad, as well as the late Eduvigis and Dominador
(all surnamed Sebastian) are the illegitimate children
of Tomasina with Jose Sebastian after she separated
from Balbino Leonardo.
Petitioner filed an action to declare the nullity of the
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Tomasina Paul
and Jose Sebastian before the RTC of San Carlos City,
Pangasinan.
Petitioner alleged that:
o Private respondent Corazon Sebastian and her
niece Julieta Sebastian, and a certain Bitang,
came to petitioners house to persuade her to
sign a deed of extrajudicial partition of the
estate of Tomasina Paul and Jose Sebastian.
o Before signing the document, petitioner
insisted that they wait for her husband so he
could translate the document which was
written in English, but proceeded to sign the
document even without her husband and
without reading the document, on the
assurance of private respondent Corazon
Sebastian that petitioners share as a
legitimate daughter of Tomasina Paul was
provided for in the extrajudicial partition.
o Private respondent Corazon and her
companions had left without leaving a copy of
the document. That it was only when petitioner
hired a lawyer that they were able to secure a
copy and read the contents thereof.
Petitioner maintained that no joint settlement of
the estate of Jose Sebastian and Tomasina Paul could
be effected since what existed between them was co-
ownership, not conjugal partnership. They were
never married to each other. The extrajudicial
partition was therefore unlawful and illegal.
Petitioner also claimed that her consent was
vitiated because she was deceived into signing
the extrajudicial settlement.
Private respondents raised the defense of lack of
cause of action. They insisted that the document in
question was valid and binding between the parties.
Moreover, that petitioners act of signing the
document estopped her to deny or question its
validity.
RTC: dismissed the complaint as well as the
counterclaim. The element of duress or fraud that
 vitiates consent was not established and that the
proper action was the reformation of the instrument,
not the declaration of nullity of the extrajudicial
settlement of estate.
CA: affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
ISSUE:
WON petitioners consent to the extrajudicial partition was
voluntarily given.
HELD:
NO. The essence of consent is the agreement of the
parties on the terms of the contract, the acceptance
by one of the offer made by the other. It is the
concurrence of the minds of the parties on the object
and the cause which constitutes the contract.
The area of agreement must extend to all points that
the parties deem material or there is no consent at
all.
To be valid, consent must meet the following
requisites:
(a) it should be intelligent, or with an exact notion of
the matter to which it refers;
(b) it should be free; and
(c) it should be spontaneous.
Intelligence in consent is vitiated by error; freedom by
violence, intimidation or undue influence; and
spontaneity by fraud.
In determining the effect of an alleged error, the
courts must consider both the objective and
subjective aspects of the case which is the intellectual
capacity of the person who committed the mistake.
Mistake, on the other hand, in order to invalidate
consent "should refer to the substance of the thing
which is the object of the contract, or to those
conditions which have principally moved one or both
parties to enter into the contract."
Article 1332 was a provision taken from american law,
necessitated by the fact that there continues to be a
fair number of people in this country without the
benefit of a good education or documents have been
written in English or Spanish.
The provision was intended to protect a party to a
contract disadvantaged by illiteracy, ignorance,
mental weakness or some other handicap.
Contracts where consent is given by mistake or
because of violence, intimidation, undue influence or
fraud are voidable. These circumstances are defects
of the will, the existence of which impairs the
freedom, intelligence, spontaneity and voluntariness
of the party in giving consent to the agreement.
Although under Art. 1332 there exists a presumption
of mistake or error accorded by the law to those who
have not had the benefit of a good education, one
who alleges any defect or the lack of a valid
consent to a contract must establish the same
by full, clear and convincing evidence, not
merely by preponderance of evidence.
In this case, the presumption of mistake or error
on the part of petitioner was not sufficiently
rebutted by private respondents. Private
respondents failed to offer any evidence to prove that
the extrajudicial settlement of estate was explained in
a language known to the petitioner, i.e. the
Pangasinan dialect.
 Clearly, petitioner, who 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
Pangasinan dialect. She stated in open court that she
did not understand English.
There is no doubt that, given her lack of education,
petitioner is protected by Art. 1332 of the Civil Code.
There is reason to believe that, had the provisions of
the extrajudicial agreement been explained to her in
the Pangasinan dialect, she would not have consented
to the significant and unreasonable diminution of her
rights.
Therefore, the presumption of mistake under Article
1332 is controlling, having remained unrebutted by
private respondents. The evidence proving that the
document was not fully explained to petitioner in a
language known to her, given her low educational
attainment, remained uncontradicted by private
respondents. We find that, in the light of the
circumstances presented by the testimonies of the
witnesses for both parties, the consent of petitioner
was invalidated by a substantial mistake or error,
rendering the agreement voidable. The extrajudicial
partition between private respondents and petitioner
should therefore be annulled and set aside on the
ground of mistake.
Notes:
It was also alleged that MTC Judge Austria, the officer who
notarized the extrajudicial settlement, stated that he
explained the contents to all the parties concerned. Granting
arguendo, however, that Judge Austria did indeed explain the
provisions of the agreement to them, the records do not
reflect that he explained it to petitioner in a language or
dialect known to her. Judge Austria never stated in his
testimony before the court a quo what language or dialect
he used in explaining the contents of the document to the
parties. Significantly, he was not even certain if the parties
to the agreement were present during the notarization of the
document.