LIM VS CA, TAN

MARIANO T. LIM, JAIME T. LIM, JOSE T. LIM, JOVITA T. LIM, ANACORITA T. LIM, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, LORENZO O. TAN and HERMOGENES O. TAN

G.R. No. L-55201          February 3, 1994

Facts:

          The case involves the partition of the properties of the deceased spouse Tan Quico and Josefa Oraa. Both died intestate. They left some ninety six (96) hectares of land. The late spouses were survived by four (4) children: Cresencia, Lorenzo, Hermogenes and Elias. Elias died without issue. Cresencia died also. She was survived by her husband, Lim Chay Sing, 4 and children, Mariano, Jaime, Jose Jovita, Anacoreta, Antonietta, Ruben, Benjamin and Rogelio. The late Cresencia and Lorenzo had contrasting educational background. Cresencia only reached the second grade of elementary school. She could not read or write in English. On the other hand, Lorenzo is a lawyer and a CPA.

Petitioners, heirs of Cresencia, alleged that since the demise of the spouses Tan Quico and Josefa Oraa, the subject properties had been administered by respondent Lorenzo. They claimed that before her death, Cresencia had demanded their partition from Lorenzo.  After Cresencia's death, they likewise clamored for their partition.  Their efforts proved fruitless. They failed Civil Case. Respondent Lorenzo and Hermogenes adamant stance against partition is based on various contentions. Principally, they urge: (1) that the properties had already been partitioned, albeit, orally; and (2) during her lifetime, the late Cresencia had sold and conveyed all her interests in said properties to respondent Lorenzo. They cited as evidence the "Deed of Confirmation of Extra Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Tan Quico and Josefa Oraa” and a receipt of payment.

Issue:

          Whether or not the Deed of Confirmation of Extra Judicial Settlement of the estate of Tan Quico and Josefa Oraa is valid

Ruling:

          The Supreme Court held that the respondent court, reversing the trial court, held that the evidence failed to establish that it was signed by the late Crescencia as a result of fraud, mistake or undue influence. We hold this ruling erroneous. In calibrating the credibility of the witnesses on this issue, we take our mandate from Article 1332 of the Civil Code which provides: "When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in 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." this substantive law came into being due to the finding of the Code Commission that there is still a fairly large number of illiterates in this country, and documents are usually drawn up in English or Spanish. It is also in accord with our state policy of promoting social justice.  It also supplements Article 24 of the Civil Code which calls on court to be vigilant in the protection of the rights of those who are disadvantaged in life. In the petition at bench, the questioned Deed is written in English, a language not understood by the late Crescencia, an illiterate. It was prepared by the respondent Lorenzo, a lawyer and CPA. For reasons difficult to divine, respondent Lorenzo did not cause the notarization of the deed.