Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    10 Garanciang V Garanciang

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    Esteban Garanciang and Ermana Buenaflor filed a complaint against Catalino Garanciang and Rufina Nocis seeking to reconvey land, alleging the transfer was void due to misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit. The defendants argued the action was barred by prescription. The Supreme Court ruled that the action was not prescribed because actions to set aside contracts that are fictitious, absolutely void, or inexistent do not prescribe. While the fraud was discovered in 1958 and the complaint was filed in 1963, more than 4 years later, void contracts have no time limit for filing actions against them. The order dismissing the complaint was set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    10 Garanciang V Garanciang

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    73 views1 page
    Esteban Garanciang and Ermana Buenaflor filed a complaint against Catalino Garanciang and Rufina Nocis seeking to reconvey land, alleging the transfer was void due to misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit. The defendants argued the action was barred by prescription. The Supreme Court ruled that the action was not prescribed because actions to set aside contracts that are fictitious, absolutely void, or inexistent do not prescribe. While the fraud was discovered in 1958 and the complaint was filed in 1963, more than 4 years later, void contracts have no time limit for filing actions against them. The order dismissing the complaint was set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Original Description:

    .

    Original Title

    10 Garanciang v Garanciang(1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Esteban Garanciang and Ermana Buenaflor filed a complaint against Catalino Garanciang and Rufina Nocis seeking to reconvey land, alleging the transfer was void due to misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit. The defendants argued the action was barred by prescription. The Supreme Court ruled that the action was not prescribed because actions to set aside contracts that are fictitious, absolutely void, or inexistent do not prescribe. While the fraud was discovered in 1958 and the complaint was filed in 1963, more than 4 years later, void contracts have no time limit for filing actions against them. The order dismissing the complaint was set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    73 views1 page

    10 Garanciang V Garanciang

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    Esteban Garanciang and Ermana Buenaflor filed a complaint against Catalino Garanciang and Rufina Nocis seeking to reconvey land, alleging the transfer was void due to misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit. The defendants argued the action was barred by prescription. The Supreme Court ruled that the action was not prescribed because actions to set aside contracts that are fictitious, absolutely void, or inexistent do not prescribe. While the fraud was discovered in 1958 and the complaint was filed in 1963, more than 4 years later, void contracts have no time limit for filing actions against them. The order dismissing the complaint was set aside and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    10 GARANCIANG vs GARANCIANG 7.

    1963: defendants filed a MTD on the ground of prescription and lack of


    G.R. No. L-22351 cause of action 

    DATE: May 21, 1969
    By: Enzo ISSUE/RULING:
WON the action is barred by prescription? NO
    Topic: Prescription
    Plaintiffs-Appellant: Esteban Garanciang and Ermana Buenaflor 8. The action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or
    Defendant-Appellees: Catalino Garanciang and Rufina Nocis inexistent, does not prescribe.
    Ponente: J. Makalintal 9. In dismissing the complaint the trial court relied on Article 1391 of the Civil
    Code, which provides that an action for annulment (of a contract) on the
    SUMARRY: Ito yung sila pet Esteban and resp Catalino, they were Father and ground of fraud prescribes in four years, computed from the discovery of
    child. Pet Esteban Garanciang owned a parcel of land they alleged that thru the fraud.
    misrepresentation, fraud and deceit they signed some documents daw purporting 10. According to the complaint the fraud was discovered by the plaintiffs on
    to be for application of pension and passport para makapag aral sa US yung anak September 10, 1958, so that when this action was filed on July 2, 1963,
    nila na si def Catalino. In defense sabi ni resp Catalino na the land was given to more than four years had passed.
    him”in kindness”. Nag file ngayon ng reconveyance sila pet Esteban alleging that 11. However, the complaint alleges not only fraud in the execution of the
    the transfer was void. In contention sabi nila resp Catalino na barred by deeds of sale sought to be annulled, but total absence of cause or
    prescripton na sila pet Esteban. Hence, the issue of WON THE ACTION OF PET consideration. This allegation, if true, would render the contracts not
    ESTEBAN FOR RECONVEYANCE IS ALREADY PRESCRIBED? Sabi ng SC NO kasi the merely voidable but absolutely void and inexistent
    action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or inexistent, 12. Indeed the sales were, on the face of the complaint, worse than fictitious,
    does not prescribe. In the case the deceit was discovered in 1958 and the since the plaintiffs had no intention — not even a simulated one — of
    complaint was filed in 1963, even though there was a lapse of more than 4 years executing them.
    already, actions against void contracts do not prescribe. So panalo sila pet
    Esteban. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
    WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded to the
    court of origin for further proceedings. Costs against appellees in this instance.
    DOCTRINE: the action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or absolutely void or
    inexistent, does not prescribe.

    FACTS:
    1. Petitioner were the owners of several parcels of land and that on 3
    occasions. through 
misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, they were
    requested to sign some papers for an 
application for their pension and
    passport for their grandson to go to USA 

    2. That the said documents turned out to be deed of sale of their lands.
    (without any 
consideration, as gesture of kindness)
    3. The possession was transferred to the defendants
    4. Respondent is the only son of the petitioner 

    5. Respondents was able to register the documents and place it under their
    names. 

    6. Petitioner discovered the “anomalous execution” of the deed of sale on
    1958 thus filing 
an adverse claim with the civil register of deeds. 


    You might also like