G.R. No. L-10462; March 16, 1916
ANDREA DUMASUG, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIX MODELO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Andrea Dumasug filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking the annulment of a document (Exhibit 1) executed on November 3, 1911. She alleged that defendant Felix Modelo fraudulently induced her to sign the document by making her believe it was merely an acknowledgment of a debt of P101.87 for expenses related to prior lawsuits she had filed to recover a parcel of land. Dumasug, who was illiterate, affixed her mark to the document. Three months later, Modelo took possession of her two parcels of land and a plow carabao, claiming they had been absolutely sold to him under Exhibit 1 for P333.49. Dumasug protested, asserting she never intended to sell her properties. The trial court declared Exhibit 1 null and void, ordered Modelo to restore the lands and pay the value of the carabao (which had died) and rents for the lands. Modelo appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the contract of sale (Exhibit 1) is null and void due to vitiated consent (either by error or fraud).

RULING:
Yes, the contract is null and void. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The Court found that Dumasug’s consent to Exhibit 1 was vitiated. The evidence showed that the only document she intended to sign was an acknowledgment of a debt for approximately P101.87, covering attorney’s fees and minimal travel expenses related to her lawsuits. The Court disbelieved Modelo’s claim that the P333.49 consideration represented numerous advances for extensive litigation expenses, noting the lawsuits were simple and involved minimal proceedings. The Court concluded that if Exhibit 1 was the same document Dumasug signed, its contents were not faithfully explained to her, leading her to sign under a material error as to the substance of the contract (a sale vs. an acknowledgment of debt). If it was a different document, then it was fraudulent. In either case, her consent was void under Articles 1265 and 1266 of the Civil Code. Consequently, pursuant to Article 1303, the parties must make mutual restitution. Modelo was ordered to restore the lands and their fruits (or their value, fixed at P75 as rent) and to pay P120 as the value of the deceased carabao.