GR 116018; (November, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 116018 November 13, 1996
NELIA A. CONSTANTINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA S. ROQUE, PRISCILLA S. LUNA and JOSEFINA S. AUSTRIA, respondents.
FACTS
The heirs of Josefa Torres, including respondents, entered into a 1984 contract to sell a 250-square-meter portion of their inherited land to petitioner Nelia Constantino. The heirs signed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale prepared by Constantino, but with several blanks left unfilled, including the specific metes and bounds. They signed with the understanding that respondent Aurora Roque would be present during a future survey with the Bureau of Lands. However, without the heirs’ knowledge or participation, Constantino subsequently caused the property to be surveyed and subdivided. The resulting deed and titles reflected a sold lot (Lot 4-B) with an area of 407 square meters, which included a portion occupied by third parties that was not part of the original agreement.
Upon discovering the discrepancy, the heirs demanded the surrender of the documents and, after Constantino refused, filed an action for annulment of the deed and cancellation of the resulting certificates of title. Constantino defended the validity of the deed, presenting the notarized document showing the heirs’ signatures and the specified lot areas.
ISSUE
Whether the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale is valid and binding, or whether it is vitiated by fraud warranting its annulment.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the annulment of the deed. The legal logic centers on the vitiation of consent due to fraud. The Court found the respondents’ claim credible that they signed the deed before the survey, when the exact area to be sold was undetermined, as evidenced by the blank spaces in the document. This was corroborated by Constantino’s own witness, who testified the survey occurred days after the signing date on the deed. The heirs were induced to sign based on Constantino’s assurance that respondent Roque would be present during the official survey. Constantino’s subsequent act of unilaterally filling the blanks, conducting the survey without the heirs, and procuring titles constituted fraud.
All elements of fraud under the Civil Code were present: it was employed by Constantino upon the heirs; it induced them to sign the incomplete deed; it was serious as it materially increased the conveyed area; and it caused damage to the heirs. The handwritten insertion of the subdivision plan number and lot areas on an otherwise typewritten document further supported the conclusion that these material details were not agreed upon at the time of signing. Consequently, the absence of true consent rendered the contract voidable. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s procedural ruling denying Constantino’s belated formal offer of evidence.