SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 209970. February 17, 2014.]
LEOPOLDO GABALES, ESTATE OF BIENVENIDO DELGADO, PACIENCIA DELGADO, AMALIA D. REDOBLE, DIOSDADO DELGADO, REYNANTE DELGADO AND THE PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF CEBU, petitioners, vs. PELAGIA I. DUPIO, LEONARDO I. DUPIO, ARMANDO I. DUPIO, CLARITA I. DUPIO, CARMELITO I. DUPIO, VIRGIE I. DUPIO, MELISSA I. DUPIO AND GEMMA I. DUPIO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 17 February 2014 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 209970 (Leopoldo Gabales, Estate of Bienvenido Delgado, Paciencia Delgado, Amalia D. Redoble, Diosdado Delgado, Reynante Delgado and The Provincial Assessor of Cebu, petitioners, v. Pelagia I. Dupio, Leonardo I. Dupio, Armando I. Dupio, Clarita I. Dupio, Carmelito I. Dupio, Virgie I. Dupio, Melissa I. Dupio and Gemma I. Dupio, respondents)
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules on Civil Procedure assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), Visayas Station, Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-CV. No. 04094 dated 30 July 2013 and 8 October 2013, respectively.
In a Complaint filed with Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu City docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-18157 for Annulment of Sale, Annulment of Waiver of Rights, Annulment of Title, Reconveyance and/or Legal Redemption and Damages, involving a parcel of land with an area of 3,956 square meters located in Saavedra, Moalboal, Cebu, respondents alleged that Pelagia Dupio entered into an agreement with a certain German national named "Hine," accompanied by Bienvenido Delgado and Leopoldo Gabales, to lease the said land for a period of ten (10) years. However, the supposed corresponding contract Pelagia Dupio signed, which was allegedly never read nor explained to her, turned out to be a Deed of Absolute Sale instead in favor of Bienvenido Delgado and Leopoldo Gabales. Hence, for total absence of consent, the subject deed should be considered void. IDcTEA
Thereafter, based on the testimonies and evidence presented, Judge Bienvenido R. Saniel, Jr. of the RTC, rendered a 34-page Decision dated 26 November 2010 declaring that respondents' action has not prescribed; that the deed of sale executed by Pelagia Dupio on 30 April 1979 in favor of Bienvenido Delgado and Leopoldo Gabales was vitiated by fraud, and therefore, voidable; that the Original Certificate of Title No. OP-42670 issued in the name of Paciencia Delgado (surviving spouse of Bienvenido) was null and void being the consequence of declaring the deed of sale void; that Tax Declaration No. 11912-A issued in the name of Paciencia Delgado was null and void; and that the doctrine of indefeasibility of title does not operate since the title was based on a fraudulent document. The trial court expressed that considering the testimony of Pelagia Dupio was not rebutted or contradicted by evidence to the contrary, it therefore established that the document/contract that she was made to sign was written in English, a language she dial not understand. Hence, it was incumbent upon petitioners to show at the trial that the contents of the document were fully explained to Pelagia Dupio, pursuant to Article 1332 of the Civil Code. Given that petitioners failed on this duty, said deed of absolute sale becomes voidable for vitiated consent under Article 1330 of the same code.
Dissatisfied, petitioners elevated said Decision and the Order dated 6 June 2011 denying its motion for reconsideration thereof before the CA by notice of appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CEB-CV. No. 04094. However, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment in the assailed 30 July 2013 Decision and held that: (a) the RTC found Pelagia Dupio and her testimony to be competent, credible and unrebutted, being in the best position to assess the credibility of said witness, thus, its factual findings are to be given the highest respect; (b) since Article 1332 of the Civil Code applies in this case, petitioners who are enforcing the deed of sale must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the party who does not understand the language used .therein; (c) the presumption of regularity of notarized documents is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary; and (d) a title emanating from a free patent which was secured through fraud does not become indefeasible, precisely because the patent from whence the title sprung is itself void and of no effect whatsoever.
Hence, this appeal alleging that: (1) the burden of proof rests upon the party who alleges fraud, and mere self-serving testimony will not suffice; (2) notarized documents carry the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution and presumption of regularity; (3) parol evidence rule forbids a party from varying the terms of a written contract; (4) the glaring acts and inactions of Pelagia Dupio should have been more than enough to discredit her self-serving claim of ignorance and/or alleged lack of knowledge or understanding of the real import of the deed of absolute sale that she signed; and (5) Article 1332 is inapplicable and should not overturn the presumption of regularity of the deed of absolute sale.
Simply put, this Court is being presented with the issue of whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTC's judgment declaring the deed of absolute sale void by reason of failure on the part of petitioners to show that they have complied with Article 1332 of the Civil Code.
A perusal of petitioner's contentions, we find that there is no error on the part of the CA in rendering its assailed Decision and Resolution dated 30 July 2013 and 8 October 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. CEB-CV. No. 04094.
To be sure, we Have not slackened in reminding that in exercising its power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case. For that reason, the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court.
Although petitioners in this case attempt to persuade this Court that this falls among the exceptions provided by jurisprudence, we are not convinced. The CA was correct in ruling that on matters involving the credibility of witnesses, the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses, since it has observed firsthand their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination. Its judicial discretion in appreciating the testimonial evidence requires great latitude unless grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is established. Indeed, the factual findings on and assessment of the credibility of a witness made by a trial court remain binding on an appellate tribunal, absent any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which would appear to have been overlooked and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the case.
From the foregoing legal standpoint, considering that the court a quo made the following pertinent factual findings: (1) that while Pelagia Dupio entered into a contract with Leopoldo Gabales and Bienvenido Delgado, her consent was vitiated by fraud as she was made to believe that what she signed was a contract of lease, not sale; and (2) that the contents of the deed of sale, which was in a language not known or not understood by Pelagia Dupio, was not fully explained to her, then the provision of Article 1332 1 of the Civil Code comes into play. TSIDaH
Article 1332 is the applicable rule in case of the inability to read of, or understand by, a party to a contract. This rule came into being because a sizeable percentage of the country's populace were uneducated comprised of illiterates, and the documents at the time had been written either in English or Spanish. It is also in accord with our state policy of promoting social justice, and likewise supplements Article 24 of the Civil Code which calls on court to be vigilant in the protection of the rights of those who are disadvantaged in life. 2 Thus, when one party is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by one of the parties, such as in the present case, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former. In other words, petitioners had the burden of proving that Pelagia Dupio fully understood the document's contents, because her plea was equivalent to an allegation of mistake or fraud. Having failed to do so, the testimony on fraud stands unrebutted and controlling. The fact that the deed of sale was in a public instrument (being notarized) is of no consequence, for even here, courts are given wide latitude in determining what actually occurred, considering the age, physical infirmity, intelligence, and relationship of the parties. 3
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible en or committed by the Court of Appeals in its 30 July 2013 Decision and 8 October 2013 Resolution, in CA-G.R. CEB-CV. No. 04094, the petition is hereby DENIED. J. Brion, on leave, J. Leonen, designated Acting Member, per Special Order No. 1636 dated 17 February 2014.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 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.
2. Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-55201, 3 February 1994, 229 SCRA 616, 623.
3. TOLENTINO, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. IV, 1991, Art. 1330, p. 475 citing Transporte v. Beltran, 51 Off. Gaz. 1434, March 1955.