REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
THIRD DIVISION

Heirs of Eliseo L. Angeles Sr. namely;

Jaime B. Angeles, al represented by CA- GR. 12346
Atty-in-fact Eliseo B. Angeles Jr., CIVIL CASE NO. 23-M-98

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS FOR: DECLARATION

OF NULLITY OF DEED
OF SALE

versus

Estate of the Late Juanito L. Angeles,

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
x-------------------------------------------------------------x

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, by counsel and unto this honorable court

respectfully files this brief:

P R E F A R A T OR Y S T A T E M E N T

An obvious violation and disregard of the right to due process was

committed against the Plaintiffs-appellants in this case.

The Honorable Court in its decision dated September 16, 2015 find
for Defendants-appellees based by mere allegations not supported by
evidence sufficient to draw a conclusion that there was a perfected Deed
of Sale as its validity is placed as an issue in this case.

The Honorable Supreme Court on this premise made

pronouncement in a case brought forth, thus:
 “The courts finds occasion to remind courts and quasi-judicial
bodies that Decision should faithfully comply with Section 14,
Article VIII of the Constitution which provides that no decision
shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly
and distinctly the facts of the case and the law on which it is
based.”

T H E PA R T IE S

Jaime, Eliseo Jr. and Maria Myrna, all surnamed as Angeles are the
Plaintiffs-Appellants in this case against their uncle, original Defendant
Juanito L. Angeles substituted by one of his Heirs upon his demise, Arnel
C. Angeles as the Appellee.

T I M E LIN E S O F T H E A P PE A L

Plaintiffs-appellants received on January 6, 2020 the Decision of the

Regional Trial Court dated December 27, 2019. A Notice of Appeal was
timely filed on January 10, 2020. Appellee received on January 12, 2020
the Order of the Court of Appeals directing to file his Appeal Brief within
Fifteen (15) days from receipt. Hence, this timely compliance.

S T A T E M E N T OF F A CT S

1.1 A case was filed before the RTC of City of Malolos Bulacan,
Branch 22 by the plaintiffs-appellants seeking that the contract
denominated as “BILIHANG TULUYAN NG ISANG PARCELA NG LUPA”,
executed last March 28, 1999 by their father, the late Eliseo L. Angeles
Sr. in favor of Juanito L. Angeles be declared a nullity.

1.2 Plaintiffs-appellants averred that the sale was simulated

one, there being no actual payment of the purchase price. Even so,
that the price in the Deed is considerably grossly inadequate. They
also stressed that the subject property is a FAMILY HOME which they
have occupied since birth. Further saying that their father was
incapacitated to enter into a contract during the time of its execution.

1.3 Defendants-appellees, however, countered that when Eliseo

Sr. decided to sell and convey the property, the former was
competent, physically fit and of sound mind.
 1.4 They also alleged and insisted that the Contract of Sale is
genuine, real with respect to consideration, hence, contracted in good
faith. And that the price given is sufficient and adequate for the
property. Defendants-appellees also pointed out that the subject
property is NOT a FAMILY HOME where the plaintiffs-appellants
reside, as they were residing separately from Eliseo Sr.

S T A T E M E N T OF T H E CA S E

The Regional Trial Court in its Decision rendered December 27, 2019
[September 16, 2019] anent the claim of damages of both the plaintiffs
and the defendants DISMISSED the case for lack of merit.

A S S IG N M E N T OF E R R OR S

The Trial Court committed the following errors as follows:

1.1 That there is perfected contract of sale despite absence of valid

consent.

As already discussed, and proven during the Trial, Dementia is not

only a problem of memory. It reduces the ability to learn, reason and
retain or recall past experience and there is also loss of patterns of
thoughts, feelings and activities. Eliseo Sr.’s Dementia, as pointed out by
expert witness, caused his inability to perform decision-making or
abstract thinking, enough for undue influence to be inferred. Hence,
consent at the time of contract was obviously vitiated.

The pertinent rules applicable is Article 1318 and Article 1390 par.
2 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which state:

Article 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites

concur:

1) Consent of the contracting parties

xxx

Article 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even

though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties.

xxx

2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence,

intimidation, UNDUE INFLUENCE or fraud.
xxx

As shown nearly incontrovertible evidence, the improper

advantage of the defendant Juanito L . Angeles consisted mainly in the
fact that he has better mental faculties and Eliseo Sr. was suffering from
Dementia. Hence, the former having power over the latter’s will.

In sum, he never gave a capable, clear and capacitated consent.

In Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 347 [1999, the Supreme
Court gave a pronouncement to give the person enforcing the contract
the burden of proof to show that the terms thereof have been fully
explained to the former when one party to a contract is disadvantaged by
illiteracy, ignorance, mental weakness or some other handicap.

It contemplates a situation wherein a contract is entered into but

the consent of one of the contracting parties is vitiated by mistake or
fraud committed by the other.

Hence, evidence of one’s signature is not enough to rule the validity

of the Contact of Sale considering the unfortunate physical infirmities of
the Eliseo Sr.

According to the late civil law authority, Arturo M. Tolentino, the

(old) rule that a party is presumed to know the import of a document to
which he affixes his signature and is bound thereby, has been altered by
Art. 1332 of the Civil Code.
1.2 That the consideration is not adequate.

Article 1470 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines states:

“Gross inadequacy of the price does not affect the Contract

of Sale, except as it may indicate a defect in the consent, or
the parties really intended a donation or some other act or
contract.”

As it appeared in the “BILIHANG TULUYAN NG ISANG PARCELA NG

LUPA” the purchase price of One Million Pesos (P 1,000,000.00) was
grossly inadequate, considering that the fair market value of the property
is at least Twenty-Five Million Pesos (P 25, 000,000.00).

This gives credence that indeed, the consent of Eliseo Sr.

considering his mental condition was vitiated.

Furthermore, Article 1471 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines

provides:

“If the price is simulated, the sale is VOID” (emphasis supplied)

As already highlighted in the case of Montecillo v. Reynes, G.R. No.

138018, July 26, 2002, where a deed of sale states that the purchase price
has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and
void for lack of consideration.

There is no one who can attest that the payment was made at the
time the subject document was executed. Even with the presence of the
witnesses to the sale, no proof of such payment was shown nor
substantiated. Hence, there being no receipt of payment nor any proof of
documentary or testimonial evidence adduced, there is no valid
transaction made in contemplation of law. The price or consideration as
FICTITIOUS, there is no Contract of Sale to speak of.

1.3 That the subject property is NOT a Family Home.

 As defined, a Family Home is a real right which is gratuitous,
inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place
and the land on which it is situated, which confers upon a particular family
the right to enjoy such properties, which must remain with the person
constituting it and his heirs.

It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases,

Ramos vs. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 185920, July 20, 2010.

Hence, they cannot bind the property in question for being violative
of Chapter 2, Title 4 of the Family Code, its encumbrance not having been
consented to in writing by a majority of the beneficiaries who are the
plaintiffs- appellants herein.

The great controlling purpose and policy of the Constitution is the

protection or the preservation of the homestead - the dwelling place. A
houseless, homeless population is a burden upon the energy, industry,
and morals of the community to which it belongs. No greater calamity,
not tainted with crime, can befall a family than to be expelled from the
roof under which it has been gathered and sheltered, Enrico s. Eulogio vs.
Paterno C. Bell, Sr et al. G.R. No. 186322, July 8, 2015.

Again, for lack of a written consent from its beneficiaries as

required under Article 158 of the Family Code, the subject property
cannot be conveyed.

1.4 That based on the contentions presented by Plaintiffs-appellants, right

to damages must be awarded.

It is a fundamental principle of the law on damages that moral

damages are recoverable when violation of specific provisions of Civil
Code on Human Relations and willful injury to property are made as bases
for cause of action. The Plaintiffs-appellants, as they claimed to be are the
rightful owners of the subject property as predicated by the Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of the Contract of Deed of Sale entered into by the
parties.
 Considering the physical suffering, mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation as enumerated, without a hinge of doubt, moral
damages, as provided for by law must be recoverable.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

the Decision of the Regional Trial Court be revered, set aside and nullified
and judgment be rendered in favor of the Plaintiffs-appellants a prayed
for in the “Memorandum for the Plaintiff”, to wit :

1. That the document denominated “BILIHANG TULUYAN NG ISANG

PARCELA NG LUPA” dated March 28, 1999, executed by the late
Eliseo Angeles Sr., be declared null and void ab initio, or in the
alternative, that the said document be annulled;

2. The cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-39678

(14862) in the name of Eliseo Angeles Sr. be declared NULL AND
VOID.

3. The defendants be made to pay moral damages to the plaintiffs-

appellants in the sum of not less that Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P 500, 000.00) , exemplary damages in the amount of not less than
One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 100,000.00) and Attorney’s Fees
in the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos ( P 50, 000.00).

Other relief and remedies just and equitable under the premises
are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

San Juan City for Malolos City, Bulacan, January 20, 2020.

CHRISTINE P. ALTARES
Counsel for the Plaintiffs-appellants
123 San Juan, City of Malolos
Roll No.: 000007/11-7-2018
IBP No.:00000777/12-7-2018
PTR No.: 12345, San Juan
MCLE COMPLIANCE: J-00007
Republic of the Philippines)
Province of Bulacan S.S.
City/Municipality of Malolos)
x----------x

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, _____________, of legal age, (single / married / widow), and a

resident of _____________, Philippines, after having been duly
sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and say:

That I am a Secretary / Legal Aide of the law office of Atty.

_____________ with office address at _____________, Philippines;

That in my aforementioned capacity, I had personally served a copy

of the _____________ in the case entitled "_____________,"
docketed as _____________ Case no. _____________ (by
personal service) to the office of _____________'s Counsel of
Record, ATTY. _____________, with address at _____________
(by registered mail with return card under Registry Receipt No.
_________).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
_____________ at _____________, Philippines

AFFIANT

(JURAT)