G.R. No. 159723; September 9, 2004
ANTONIO S. LIM, JR., represented by his attorney-in-fact, PAZ S. LIM, petitioner, vs. VICTOR K. SAN and ELINDO LO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Antonio S. Lim, Jr., through his mother and attorney-in-fact Paz S. Lim, sought the annulment of a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land in Davao City. The deed was executed by Paz S. Lim in favor of her brother, respondent Victor K. San. Petitioner alleged the sale was void due to lack of consideration and vitiated consent. He claimed respondent San took advantage of Paz Lim’s depressed mental state following her husband’s death, procuring her signature through fraud and trickery without her appearing before the notary. Petitioner further asserted no payment was ever made for the property.
Respondent San denied the allegations, contending the sale was valid, the consideration of P264,450 was fully paid, and Paz Lim’s consent was freely given. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal, specifically in finding that petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the consent of his attorney-in-fact was vitiated by fraud or intimidation and that no consideration was paid for the sale.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed decisions. The legal logic centered on the essential elements of a contract and the burden of proof. A contract of sale requires consent, a determinate subject matter, and a price certain in money or its equivalent. Consent must be intelligent, free, and spontaneous; vitiation by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud renders a contract merely voidable, not void ab initio.
The Court held petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving his allegations with clear and convincing evidence. The claim of Paz Lim’s depressed mental state was supported only by foreign medical certificates whose due execution and authenticity were not properly established. Her own testimony revealed she signed the deed voluntarily to raise funds, understood the transaction, and did not report any alleged threats from her brother to authorities, undermining the claim of intimidation. On the issue of consideration, the respondent’s assertion of full payment, coupled with the petitioner’s failure to substantiate the contrary, prevailed. The findings of the trial court, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, on the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence are generally binding, as trial courts are in the best position to observe witness demeanor. Thus, no reversible error was committed.