Scribd
Upload
160 views1 page

22 Dela Cruz Vs Dela Cruz 419 SCRA 648

Pacencia dela Cruz claimed she did not understand the deed of sale she signed conveying land to her son Fortunato because it was entirely in English, which she could not read. However, the Supreme Court found that Pacencia failed to prove she could not speak, read, or understand English. The Court also found that Pacencia did not establish that the terms of the contract were not fully explained to her as required by Article 1332 of the Civil Code for such contracts to be considered void when one party cannot understand the language. Therefore, the deed of sale was deemed valid and the decision of the lower courts upholding the rights of the respondents, who acquired the land from Fortunato, was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Cleofe Sobiaco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
160 views1 page

22 Dela Cruz Vs Dela Cruz 419 SCRA 648

Pacencia dela Cruz claimed she did not understand the deed of sale she signed conveying land to her son Fortunato because it was entirely in English, which she could not read. However, the Supreme Court found that Pacencia failed to prove she could not speak, read, or understand English. The Court also found that Pacencia did not establish that the terms of the contract were not fully explained to her as required by Article 1332 of the Civil Code for such contracts to be considered void when one party cannot understand the language. Therefore, the deed of sale was deemed valid and the decision of the lower courts upholding the rights of the respondents, who acquired the land from Fortunato, was affirmed.

Uploaded by

Cleofe Sobiaco
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Manguera, Jade Ashley DG.

18-4002

Dela Cruz vs Dela Cruz


G.R. No. 146222; 15 January 2004
When one of the parties is unable to read – Article 1332 of NCC

FACTS:
Pacencia dela Cruz (Pacencia), the petitioner, was the owner of a parcel of land located in
Bulacan. Said land was registered under Pacencia’s name with TCT no. 14585. Pacencia allegedly
executed a Deed of Sale, conveying the said the parcel of land, in favor of her son, Fortunato dela Cruz.
Thereafter, Fortunato executed a Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan in favor of Clark and Divina Gutierrez
(Gutierrezes), the respondents.

Pacencia instituted an action for reconveyance of the property in issue against Fortunato and
Guiterrezes before RTC Bulacan. Pacencia contended that: (a) Fortunato took advantage of his close ties
with her to induce he to sign an instrument which appeared to be a Deed of Sale; (b) that the Deed was
entirely and completely written in English, a language neither known nor understood by Ponencia; and (c)
that the terms of the Deed had not been fully explained to Pacencia. While Fortunato averred that: (a) he
lawfully acquired the subject property from Pacencia; and (b) Pacencia voluntarily executed the Deed of
Sale. RTC Bulacan declared Gutierrezes as lawful owners of the property. Court of Appeals affirmed
RTC’s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale in issue is simulated and void pursuant to Article 1332 of the
NCC.

RULING:
No. The Deed of Absolute Sale in issue is valid and subsisting.

The Supreme Court (SC) held that ppetitioners harp on the fact that the assailed Deed was in
English and that it was not explained to Paciencia. But SC found that the petitioners failed to prove their
allegation that Pacencia could not speak, read, or understand English. Further, SC held that for Article
1332 to apply, it must first be convincingly established that the illiterate or disadvantaged party could not
read or understand the language in which the contract was written, or that the contract was left
unexplained to said party. Petitioners failed to discharge this burden. Art. 1332 of the NCC stated that
“When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and
mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been
fully explained to the former.”

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed decision dated
September 14, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 53679, which sustained the decision of
the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 17, dated December 14, 1995, in Civil Case No.
37-M-89, as well as the appellate courts resolution of November 28, 2000, is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioners.

You might also like