FIRST DIVISION
[G.R . No. 235605. July 3, 2019.]
HEIRS OF THE LATE JUANITO L. ANGELES, NAMELY: ARNEL ANGELES, JUANITO ANGELES, JR., JOSE WALDO ANGELES, JERRY ANGELES, AND RUEL ANGELES, petitioners, vs.HEIRS OF THE LATE ELISEO L. ANGELES, NAMELY: JAIME ANGELES SUBSTITUTED BY DORIS JOY FABILLAR-ANGELES, ELISEO ANGELES, JR., AND MARIA MYRNA ANGELES, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, ELISEO ANGELES, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 3, 2019which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 235605 (Heirs of the Late Juanito L. Angeles, namely: Arnel Angeles, Juanito Angeles, Jr., Jose Waldo Angeles, Jerry Angeles, and Ruel Angeles v. Heirs of The Late Eliseo L. Angeles, namely: Jaime Angeles substituted by Doris Joy Fabillar-Angeles, Eliseo Angeles, Jr., and Maria Myrna Angeles, represented by her Attorney-In-Fact, Eliseo Angeles, Jr.). — After review, the Court resolves to DENY the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its ruling, which reversed the Decision dated September 16, 2015 of Branch 22, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan in Civil Case No. 842-M-1999. The CA correctly found that the testimonies of expert medical witnesses raise doubts on the mental capacity of Eliseo L. Angeles to give his consent to the sale, given his physical condition and sickness, which affected his mental abilities. In fact, all the witnesses, both medical experts and the notary public, attested that Eliseo was already weak at the time of the execution of the sale. Petitioners, on the other hand, could only offer denials and insufficient corroboration to their allegations regarding Eliseo L. Angeles' mental capacity to give consent. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance of the thing and the cause, which are to constitute the contract. A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds upon the thing that is the object of the contract, and upon the price. 1 In the present case, no such meeting of the minds was established. Moreover, there was no proof that the consideration of P1,000,000.00 was given to Eliseo L. Angeles for the sale of the subject property in Baliuag, Bulacan and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-39678. Petitioners merely denied the lack of consideration but were never able to present any evidence that the consideration, whether deposited or given in cash, was given. Considering that the witnesses at the time of the execution of the sale denied the fact that any payment was given, evidence of such consideration becomes even more important. Indeed, a contract of purchase and sale is null and void and produces no effect whatsoever where the same is without cause or consideration in that the purchase price which appears thereon as paid has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor. 2 Given that consent and consideration, both essential requisites for a valid contract under Article 1318 of the Civil Code, was found to be wanting in this case, this Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the ruling of the CA.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated June 9, 2017 and the Resolution dated November 10, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 106314 are hereby AFFIRMED. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."Gesmundo, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Clemente v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175483, October 14, 2015, 772 SCRA 339, 351. Citations omitted.
2.Montecillo v. Reynes, G.R. No. 138018, July 26, 2002, 385 SCRA 244, 256. Citations omitted.