LAURENTIO ARMENTIA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ERLINDA PATRIARCA, FLORENCIA SOMECIERA, JULIANA ARMENTIA, JOSE SOMECIERA AND SOFRONIO FLORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE REGISTER OF DEE…

Armentia versus Patriarca

The Case

This is the case of Armentia versus Patriarca, decided by the Supreme Court on December 29, 1966. Laurentio Armentia, a brother of the deceased Marta Armentia, sued Erlinda Patriarca and Florencia Someciera to have a deed of sale declared inexistent or, in the alternative, annulled, and to recover his supposed share in the land, the house, and a sewing machine left by Marta. The case matters because it fixes who may bring an action to annul a contract: only a party obliged principally or subsidiarily, or an heir to whom the rights and obligations of the contract were transmitted. It also reminds us that a brother who is not a forced heir cannot complain of a voluntary conveyance by his sister, and that registration is notice to the whole world for purposes of the four-year period to annul on the ground of fraud.

Procedural History

Laurentio Armentia commenced suit in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against Erlinda Patriarca and Florencia Someciera as principal defendants, impleading Juliana Armentia and Jose Someciera as unwilling co-heirs and Sofronio Flores in his capacity as Register of Deeds. The defendants moved to dismiss on two grounds: lack of cause of action and prescription. Over the plaintiff's opposition, the trial court, in its order of November 21, 1960, dismissed the case on the ground that the action to annul the sale had prescribed. A motion for reconsideration was denied in the order of December 17, 1960. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court in forma pauperis, and the Court affirmed the dismissal.

Facts

Laurentio, Juliana, and Marta Armentia were brothers and sisters of the full blood. Jose Someciera was the acknowledged natural son of their deceased mother; Florencia Someciera was Jose's daughter, and Erlinda Patriarca was a granddaughter of Juliana. Marta was married to Gregorio Bueno, who died in 1942.

By a notarial document dated July 22, 1955, Marta did two things. First, she adjudicated to herself a parcel of land in the Pototan cadastre, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title 21323, which she had inherited from her deceased husband, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 74 of the 1940 Rules of Court. Second, for a consideration of 99 pesos, which she acknowledged receiving from Erlinda Patriarca, then 13 years old, and Florencia Someciera, then 20 years old, she sold them that same property. The document was recorded in the registry of deeds on the same day, and title 21323 was cancelled by Transfer Certificate of Title 18797 in the names of the two vendees.

Marta died intestate and without forced heirs on May 28, 1960. On September 17, 1960, Laurentio sued, alleging that the sale was simulated and fictitious, or at least voidable because the vendees were minors; that it was fraudulently executed and the consideration grossly inadequate; that Marta remained in possession and paid the taxes until she died; and that he learned of the sale only one week before filing. He also claimed a share in a Singer sewing machine. The trial court dismissed the case as prescribed, and the matter reached the Supreme Court on appeal.

Issues

• Whether or not the plaintiff, a brother and intestate heir but not a forced heir of the deceased vendor, has a cause of action to annul or rescind the sale.
• Whether or not the action to annul the sale on the ground of fraud has prescribed.
• Whether or not the claim over the sewing machine properly belongs to the Court of First Instance.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1397 of the Civil Code provides:

The action for annulment of contracts may be instituted by all who are thereby obliged principally or subsidiarily.

This limits who may sue to annul, and the plaintiff must fall within it.

Article 1311 of the Civil Code provides:

Contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs except in case where the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law.

It also provides that the heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent, which bears on whether any right under the sale passed to the plaintiff.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the plaintiff has no cause of action. Even admitting his allegations, the sale was at most voidable, not void: Marta executed the document, the minority of the vendees made the contract annullable by them, and inadequacy of consideration does not mean total want of consideration. The plaintiff's case was therefore bottomed on fraud, which renders a contract voidable. But under Article 1397, read with Article 1311, only those obliged principally or subsidiarily may sue. The plaintiff was a mere brother and intestate heir, not a forced heir; Marta had neither ascendants nor descendants and was free to dispose of her property. She transmitted no right in the property to him; no creditors were defrauded and no legitimes were impaired. The Court relied on Concepcion versus Sta. Ana, which held that an heir who receives no right arising from the contract cannot sue to annul it.

On the second issue, even conceding a right of action, the Court held the case barred. An action to annul a contract based on fraud must be filed within four years from discovery, and discovery is reckoned from registration, because registration is notice to the whole world. The document was recorded on July 22, 1955, but suit was started only on September 17, 1960; the four-year period had elapsed.

On the third issue, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim to a share in the sewing machine, which was not the subject of the sale, did not exceed 5,000 pesos, and that his separate action, if any, should have been addressed to the Municipal Court.

Doctrine

First, the action to annul a contract may be brought only by a party obliged principally or subsidiarily, or by an heir to whom the rights and obligations arising from the contract were transmitted. An intestate heir who is not a forced heir, and to whom the deceased transmitted no right under the contract, has no standing to annul a voluntary conveyance by the deceased. Second, a sale with grossly inadequate consideration, or one entered into by minor vendees, is at most voidable, not void from the beginning. Third, the four-year period to annul a contract on the ground of fraud runs from registration of the document, because registration is notice to the whole world.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of November 21, 1960 dismissing the complaint, without costs; the defendants prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: an heir who is not a forced heir and to whom no right under the contract was transmitted cannot sue to annul the deceased's voluntary conveyance. Examiners use this case on the requisites of the action for annulment under Article 1397 and on registration as constructive notice that starts the four-year period for fraud.