100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 66 pages.
The basic characteristic then of a simulated contract is that it is not reallydesired or intended to produce legal effects or does not in any way alter thejuridical situation of the parties.The cancellation of Mendoza’s certificate of title over the property and theprocurement of one in its stead in the name of respondents, which actswere directed towards the fulfillment of the purpose of the contract,unmistakably show the parties’ intention to give effect to their agreement.The claim of simulation does not thus lie.5) SPOUSES MAPALO vs. MAXIMO MAPALOFACTS: Spouses Miguel Mapalo and Candida Quiba, simple illiterate farmers,were registered owners of residential land in Manaoag, Pangasinan. Theydonated the eastern part of their land to Miguel Mapalo however they weredeceived into signing a deed of absolute sale over the entire land. Followingthe execution of the afore-stated document, the spouses Miguel Mapalo andCandida Quiba immediately built a fence of permanent structure in themiddle of their land segregating the eastern portion from its westernportion. Said fence still exists. The spouses have always been in continued
possession over the western half of the land up to the present. MaximoMapala registered the land to his name and sold it to the Narcisos. Theysubsequently registered it to their name.The Narcisos took possession only of the eastern portion of the land in1951, after the sale in their favor was made. On February 7, 1952 they filedsuit in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Civil Case No. 1191) to bedeclared owners of the entire land, for possession of its western portion; fordamages; and for rentals. It was brought against the Mapalo spouses aswell as against Floro Guieb and Rosalia Mapalo Guieb who had a house onthe western part of the land with the consent of the spouses Mapalo andQuiba.The Narcisos appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its decision on May 28,1963, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Court of FirstInstance, solely on the ground that the consent of the Mapalo spouses to thedeed of sale of 1936 having been obtained by fraud, the same was voidable,not void ab initio, and, therefore, the action to annul the same, within fouryears from notice of the fraud, had long prescribed. It reckoned said noticeof the fraud from the date of registration of the sale on March 15, 1938. TheCourt of First Instance and the Court of Appeals are therefore unanimousthat the spouses Mapalo and Quiba were definitely the victims of fraud. Itwas only on prescription that they lost in the Court of Appeals.The plaintiffs only assailed the validity of the sale with respect to thewestern portion of the land.ISSUE:Whether there was an onerous conveyance of ownership, that is, asale, by virtue of said deed of October 15, 1936, with respect to saidwestern portion. Specifically, was there a cause or consideration to supportthe existence of a contrary of sale?