Carantes vs CA (1977) Petitioner: Petitioner: Maximino Carantes (substituted by his wife Engracia) Respondents: Respondents: CA, i!ad Carantes, et a!" #ature: Action for recon$eyance GIST: %he %he heirs of the !and of of Mateo Carantes executed executed a deed of &Assignment of Right to 'nheritance in fa$or of their brother, Maximino" ater on, they wanted to annu! the *eed on the ground that they executed it on!y because Maximino made them be!ie$e it wou!d ma+e a transaction with the o$ernment (who wants to buy part of the !and for an airport) easier" easier" -hen the case reached the .C, Maximino/s wife who substituted him says that the other heirs/action is not for annu!ment but for reformation reformation of the deed" .C says she cannot raise this for the 0rst time" *eed is $oidab!e, but heirs/ action has prescribed" prescribed" FACTS: 1" Mateo Carantes Carantes was the owner owner of ot #o 22 in aoa+an, aoa+an, aguio aguio City" City" 3e died in 1415" 6" 1457 8 the o$ernm o$ernment ent commenced commenced the the constructio construction n of the ao+an ao+an Airport" A portion of ot #o 22 was needed for the airstrip, so it was subdi$ided into ots #os" 229A to 229E" %he go$ernment expropriated ot #o" 229A" 5" 1455 8 .pecia! .pecia! Proceedin Proceedings gs for the sett!eme sett!ement nt of the estate estate of Mateo Carantes were 0!ed" ne of his sons, Maximino Carantes, was appointed ;udicia! administrator" administrator" 2" " Assigned Assigned to Maximino Maximino Carantes Carantes their their rights rights to inheritance inheritance in ot ot #o 22 ?" @he state stated d monetary monetary condit condition ion was was P1"77 P1"77
" Contains Contains a pro$ision pro$ision saying saying that the said !ots right!y right!y and exc!usi$ exc!usi$e!y e!y be!ong to Maximino Carantes 4" n the same same date, Maximino Maximino so!d to the the o$ernment o$ernment ots #os 229 229 and 229C" 17"" 17 Mar Mar 1> 1>,, 1 142 427 7 8 Maxi Maxim mino ino regis egiste terred the the deed deed of &As Assi sign gnme ment nt of Right to 'nheritance 11"" 11 Beb 61 61,, 142 142? ? 8 the the %C %C% co$ co$er erin ing g o ots #o #os 229 229A A to to 22 229C was was issued in the name of the o$ernment, and the %C% co$ering the remaining !ots was issued in the name of Maximo" 16"" 16 .ept ept" 2, 2, 14= 14= 8 a com comp!ain !aintt was 0!ed 0!ed by the the thr three other ther chi!dren of Mateo Carantes with Maximo as defendant 15 " A!!egations of the comp!aint: 12 " %hey ex executed th the de deed of of &A &Assignment of of Rig Righ ht 1="" 1= to 'n 'nheri herita tan nce ce on! on!y y bec becau aus se Max Maxim imin ino o mad made e th them be!ie e!ie$ $e that the deed embodied the understanding among the parties that it mere!y authoried Maximino Maximino to con$ey portions of ot #o 22 to the o$ernment o$ernment in their beha!f to minimie expenses and faci!itate the
transaction" 1>" 't was on!y on Beb" 1, 14= when they found out that the deed purported to assign in fa$or of Maximino their rights to inheritance" 1?" %he heirs want the &Assignment of Right of 'nheritance to be dec!ared nu!! and $oid" 1" R%C: the heirs/ right of action has prescribed" Action based on fraud prescribes in 2 years" %he fraud a!!eged!y committed by Maximino is deemed to ha$e been disco$ered on Mar 1>, 1427 when the deed of assignment was registered" %he heirs 0!ed the action on!y in 14=" 14" CA re$ersed R%C" Re!ied on #CC 1274" &Assignment of Right to 'nheritance is $oid ab initio because there was no consent and the P1"77 consideration is too sma!! to be a consideration" (at this point, Maximino/s wife Engracia has substituted Maximino) 'n the brief before the .C, Engracia argues that the heirs/ action is #% for annu!ment of the deed of Assignment but for the reformation thereof" %his action has a!!eged!y prescribed" Issues: 1. -# the heirs action, being one for reformation of the deed, prescribedD 6" -# the deed is $oid ab initioD 5" -# the deed is $oidab!eD
Held: 1" Engracia cannot raise this issue for the 0rst time when she did not raise it in his answer in the R%C" 6" #o" 5" es, but the action has prescribed" Ratio: Re: action for reformation F Maximino did not raise the defense of prescription of the action for reformation in his answer to the heirs/ comp!aint in the R%C, so Engracia cannot raise this anymore F %he tria! proceeded on the theory that the action sought the dec!aration of the nu!!ity of the deed of Assignment F .ett!ed ru!e: defenses not p!eaded in the answer may not be raised for the 0rst time on appea! Re: Goid ab initio F .C cannot agree with CA, re!ying on #CC 1274, that the deed is $oid ab initio because there is no consent and consideration F The consideration as not a!sent. "1.## is a valid consideration and it a$$ears so in the docu%ent F %he document a!so recites that Mateo Carantes, when he was sti!! a!i$e, had expressed to his heirs that ot #o 22 be!onged exc!usi$e!y to Maximino Carrantes" %his ac+now!edgement
by the heirs constitutes $a!uab!e consideration for the contract"
HHHRe: &oida!le F #CC 1547: a contract where the consent is $itiated by mista+e, $io!ence, intimidation, undue inIuence or fraud is $oidab!e F #CC 15=4 par 6: if mista+e, fraud, ineJuitab!e conduct or accident has pre$ented a meeting of the minds of parties, the proper remedy is not reformation of the instrument but annu!ment of the contract F Braud or deceit does not render a contract $oid ab initio, but mere!y $oidab!e" An action to annu! a contract on the ground of fraud prescribes in 2 years F 'n this case, the fraud must be deemed to ha$e been disco$ered on March 1>, 1427, when the *eed was registered in the Register of *eeds F %he registration of an instrument constitutes a constructi$e notice to the who!e wor!d, and disco$ery of fraud is deemed to ha$e ta+en p!ace at the time of registration %hus,
since the heirs 0!ed the present action on!y in 14=, the action has prescribed" CA
