G.R. No. 199766 April 10, 2019
Generoso Sepe, Petitioner vs. Heirs of Anastacia Kilang, represented by her children Maria, Donata, Feliciana, Dominga and Severo all surnamed Solijon, Respondents

FACTS

The respondents, heirs of Anastacia Kilang, sought the annulment of a Deed of Sale dated November 18, 1992, whereby the then 84-year-old, illiterate, and bedridden Anastacia, with spousal consent, purportedly sold her paraphernal lot to petitioner Generoso Sepe and his wife for ₱15,000. The complaint alleged that the family, believing the document was for a subdivision agreement, was misled into signing the deed. Anastacia later executed a Notice of Adverse Claim denying the sale, but subsequently withdrew it via a notarized notice stating she remembered selling the land. After Anastacia’s death, her heirs filed the complaint. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Sepe’s demurrer to evidence, dismissing the case on grounds of prescription and ratification, and giving credence to the notarized documents.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding that the respondents’ evidence sufficiently established a cause of action for annulment based on fraud or vitiated consent. The CA held that the issue of prescription and the validity of the respondents’ ratification through a subsequent Confirmation of Sale were factual matters improperly resolved in a demurrer to evidence, which only tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence. The CA reinstated the case for further proceedings. Sepe elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s order granting the demurrer to evidence and dismissing the complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. The Court clarified that a demurrer to evidence is a procedural tool testing the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence to sustain a verdict. In ruling on a demurrer, the trial court is not to weigh evidence or assess credibility but must consider the plaintiff’s evidence as true and deduce whether it prima facie establishes a right to relief. The RTC erred by weighing the respondents’ oral testimonies against the petitioner’s documentary evidence and making factual determinations on prescription and ratification, which are evidentiary matters for a full trial.
The Court found that the respondents’ evidence—testimonies alleging fraud and vitiated consent, the Notice of Adverse Claim, and expert testimony on questioned signatures—if taken as true, prima facie made out a case for annulment of contract under Articles 1390 and 1391 of the Civil Code. The issues of whether the action had prescribed or whether the subsequent Confirmation of Sale constituted ratification involve disputed facts and the credibility of witnesses, which cannot be resolved in a demurrer. Therefore, the CA correctly ordered the remand of the case to the RTC for the petitioner to present his evidence and for a full trial on the merits.