G.R. No. L-12712; August 21, 1918
JOSEFA DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GELASIO CAPINPIN and JULIANA ALBEA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On May 19, 1914, Josefa de la Cruz became the absolute owner of a 27-hectare parcel of land (acquired from Victoriana Enriquez) and the owner under a pacto de retro of two other parcels (20 and 5 hectares) purchased from spouses Gelasio Capinpin and Juliana Albea. On the same date, the parties executed a contract of lease (Exhibit A) wherein the defendants agreed to rent all three parcels from the plaintiff and pay an annual rent of 774 cavans of palay. The defendants failed to pay the rent, prompting the plaintiff to file an action for its recovery. The defendants claimed they were relieved from paying the rent because they had repurchased the 27-hectare parcel from the plaintiff, as evidenced by two documents (Exhibits 1 and 2). The plaintiff, an illiterate woman, asserted that she was induced by fraud to sign Exhibits 1 and 2 under the false representation that they were mere substitutes for the allegedly destroyed Exhibit A. The notary public, Ramon Balino, testified that he did not witness the plaintiff sign the documents and that they were brought to him by another notary, Lorenzo A. Dionisio, who promised to bring the plaintiff for acknowledgment latera promise never fulfilled. The trial court rendered a decision ordering the defendants to pay rent only for the 20 and 5-hectare parcels (372 cavans, 2 gantas, and 7 chupas of palay). Both parties appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendants are liable to pay the full annual rent of 774 cavans of palay under the lease contract (Exhibit A), or whether they were validly relieved from such obligation by virtue of Exhibits 1 and 2.

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Josefa de la Cruz. The Court found that Exhibits 1 and 2 were fraudulent documents. The plaintiff, unable to read or write, was deceived into signing them under the misrepresentation that they were mere replacements for Exhibit A. The notarial acknowledgment was also irregular, as the notary public did not witness the signing. Furthermore, the recitals in Exhibits 1 and 2 contained factual inaccuracies, such as a false reference to a sale by the defendants to the plaintiff for P5,000 and a non-existent acknowledgment before another notary. Consequently, the lease contract (Exhibit A) remained valid and enforceable. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff the full annual rent of 774 cavans of palay for the use of all three parcels, with the alternative monetary value of P2.75 per cavan in case of non-delivery. The Court also referred the conduct of the notaries public involved to the Attorney-General for appropriate action.