Rongavilla vs CA

Facts: The plaintiffs in this case is Dolores Rongavilla who allegedly

tricked their aunts, Mercedes de la Cruz and Florencia dela Cruz, who
were said to be unschooled in English and earned their livelihood as
embroiderers and dressmakers. The property in dispute is one owned by
the respondents. It happened that private respondents de la Cruz
borrowed the amount of two thousand pesos from plaintiff for repair of
their dilapidated rooftop and month later, the petitioner Rongavilla
visited the former and have them signed a paper which was apparently
written in English. When asked what the paper was about, that it was
just to show that respondents had a debt amounting to two thousand
pesos. The respondent then signed the contract. After 4 years, the
respondents were surprised when the petitioner asked them to vacate the
property claimining that she and her husband were already the new
owners of the land. The respondent with the help of their friends went to
the Office of the Register of Deeds to verify the matter and found out
that their ctc had been cancelled and a new one had been issued to the
petitioners and that the property was subjected for mortgage. With this
they filed with the trial court a sworn complaint to have the deed of sale
declared void and inexistent and that it was secured by fraud and
misrepresentation. They also contended that they did not sell the
property and that they did not even received a consideration on the
supposed sale. Petitioners in their answer stated that the respondents sold
the land to them voluntarily and that there was consent to the deed of
sale and there was sufficient consideration.
The trial court decided in favor of the respondents. Petitioners were also
denied upon appeal.
Issue: W/n there was a consideration in the alleged sale.
Held: None. The Court ruled based on the decision of Mapalo where it
stated, The rule under the Civil Code, again be it the old or the new, is
that contracts without a cause or consideration produce no effect
whatsoever. There was no intent on the part of the respondents to sell
their property as evidenced by the amount loaned for the purpose of
repair of their rooftop. There was also no consent and no consideration
agreed upon thus making the contract void.