Vda. de Ape v.

Court of Appeals
456 SCRA 193

ISSUE:

Whether or not a receipt signed by an illiterate man, who is a seller in a sale of land,
could serve as proof of the existence of a contract of sale with his supposed buyer.

SALIENT FACTS:

The owner of a land was said to have entered into a contract of sale with another
individual. According to the supposed buyer, such a sale was evidenced by a receipt
signed by the supposed seller. This receipt, which was in English, was prepared by the
buyer’s son-in-law who also acted as witness to the agreement and was ultimately
signed in the buyer’s store as well. The receipt involved a downpayment for the land
subject to the supposed sale.

After two years, the buyer filed an action for Specific Performance for the seller to
accept the remaining balance of the sale and also for him to convey a Deed of Absolute
Sale in favor of the buyer. At this point, the supposed seller has already passed away
and is now being represented by his wife and heirs. His wife contends that the consent
of her husband, who did not know how to read English and who only knew how to write
his name for business transactions, was vitiated for he did not fully comprehend the
nature of the document he was signing.

RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The Court annulled the contract of sale between the seller and buyer citing Article 1332
of the Civil Code which provides that if it be proven that one of the contracting parties is
unable to read or that the contract is written in a language not understood by him, then
the burden of proof that the said contracting party understood the contract shall fall on
the one seeking to enforce it.

In the case at bar, the supposed buyer was not able to provide sufficient proof that the
seller, being an illiterate man, actually understood the consequences of the receipt he
signed which was written in English. Furthermore, the brother-in-law of the buyer
testified that during the signing, there was no other impartial witness aside from him
who could have ensured that the buyer really comprehended the agreement he was
entering into.

Thus, being that a contract of sale is consensual in nature, the meeting of the minds of
the parties is of utmost importance. If it is shown that one of the contracting parties was
an illiterate and did not understand the terms of the contract, it should be annulled on
the grounds of vitiated consent.

CRITIQUE AND ANALYSIS:

Taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court was able
to appropriately apply Article 1332 of the Civil Code which seeks to protect illiterates
from entering into onerous contracts without them fully understanding the
consequences. Based on the testimony of the supposed buyer’s brother-in-law, the
buyer had knowledge that the seller did not know how to read English. If the buyer was
indeed contracting this contract of sale in good faith, she could have exerted an effort to
at least have the receipt written in a language that could be understood by the seller.
Instead, she had her brother-in-law make the receipt in English and did not even bother
to find any other impartial witness who could have assisted the seller. These acts of bad
faith clearly tainted the meeting of the minds needed in a contract of sale.

While the Court has reminded many times that it would not undo a contract just because
one of its parties received the shorter end of the bargain, situations like this prove to be
the exception. This is in keeping with Article 24 of the Civil Code where in contractual
relations, the courts shall ensure the protection of those that are at a disadvantage on
the account of their ignorance, indigence, and mental weakness among others. I believe
that this particular case squarely falls into the ambit of protection that this provision
provides and that the Supreme Court was correct in annulling the contract on the basis
of vitiated consent. It served to emphasize that the consensual nature of a contract is of
no light matter and it must always be assured by its parties no matter what.