Case Digest: Almeda vs. Heirs of Ponciano Almeda, 839 SCRA 630

Almeda vs. Heirs of Ponciano Almeda, 839 SCRA 630 (2017)

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Spouses Venancio Almeda (Venancio) and Leonila Laurel-Almeda (Leonila) were the parents of nine children. In May 1976, a Power of Attorney was executed by Venancio and Leonila, who were then 80 and 81 years old respectively, granting Ponciano, among others, the authority to sell the parcels of land, which Leonila inherited from her parents.

Venancio died in 1985 while Leonila died later in 1993. Within the year of Leonila's death on April 17, 1993, Rafael, Emerlina, Alodia, Leticia and Norma filed a notice of adverse claim with the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City over their parents' properties.

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Nullity of Contracts, Partition of Properties and Reconveyance of Titles with Damages against respondent and the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City, with other unwilling plaintiffs. They alleged that the parties were the only heirs of the late spouses Venancio and Leonila who died without leaving any will and without any legal obligation.

In support of their Complaint, petitioners claimed that Ponciano, taking advantage of his being the eldest child and his close relationship with their parents, caused the simulation and forgery of (1) Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 9, 1976 executed by Ponciano as Venancio and Leonila's attorney-in-fact, in favor of Julian Y. Pabilo, Virginia Go, Gemma Tan Ongking, Arthur C. Chua and Lee Hiong Wee and (2) Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 3, 1978 executed by Venancio and Leonila in favor of Ponciano, over the remaining lots.

Ponciano died in October 1997 and was substituted by his wife and children.

ISSUE

Whether or not their deceased (Venancio and Leonila) parents are incapacitated as to deprive them of reason or hinder them from freely exercising their own will or from comprehending the provisions of the sale in favor of their son Ponciano.

RULING

No.

Under the law (Art 1329, NCC), the incapacity declared in Article 1327 of the Civil Code is subject to the modification determined by law and is understood to be without prejudice to special disqualification established in the laws.

In this case, petitioners' claim that Venancio and Leonila were forgetful and at times sickly was not even supported by medical evidence. It was based solely on Emerlina's testimony, which failed to demonstrate that Venancio and Leonila's mental state had prevented them from freely giving their consent to the 1978 Deed or from understanding the nature and effects of their disposition. Mere forgetfulness without evidence that the same has removed from a person the ability to intelligently and firmly protect his property rights, will not by itself incapacitate a person from entering into contracts. A person is not incapacitated to enter into a contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities, unless such age and infirmities impair his mental faculties to the extent that he is unable to properly, intelligently and fairly understand the provisions of said contract, or to protect his property rights.