ESTEBAN GARANCIANG, AND ERMANA BUENAFLOR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. CATALINO GARANCIANG, AND RUFINA NOCIS, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

This is a pauper’s appeal
from the order dated August 20, 1963 of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint in Case No.
U-661.  The
pertinent allegations in said complaint are as follows:  that the plaintiffs were the owners of
several parcels of land (specifically referred to by their respective lot
numbers and certificates of title); “that on three occasions, thru
misrepresentation, fraud and deceit (they) were re­quested to sign some papers
purportedly to be (sic) an ap­plication for their pension and passport of their
grandson to go to America;” that said documents, which turned out to be
deeds of sale of their lands, were executed without any consideration;
“that the possession of the said pro­perties were transferred to the
defendants, some as a gesture of kindness… for the reason that Catalino Garanciang is the only
son of the plaintiffs;” that the defend­ants were able to register the
documents and to obtain the corresponding
transfer certificates of title; that the plaintiffs discovered the
“anomalous execution” of the deeds of sale on or about September 10,
1958, whereupon they filed an adverse claim with the Register of Deeds; and
that despite repeated demands, the defendants failed and refused to deliver
possession of the lands to the plaintiffs. 
The relief prayed for was for recovery of possession; for a declaration
that the deeds of sale and the transfer certificates
of title issued pursuant thereto were null and void; and for damages,
attorney’s fees and costs.

On August 7, 1963 the defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription and lack of cause of action.  The plaintiffs opposed.  On August 20, 1963 the trial court granted
the motion and dismissed the complaint on the first ground relied upon.  The plaintiffs moved to reconsider but were
turned down; hence the instant appeal.

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 ground of fraud prescribes in four years, computed from the
discovery of the fraud.  According to the complaint the fraud
was discovered by the plaintiffs on September 10, 1958, so that when this
action was filed an July 2, 1963, more than four years
had passed.  However, the com­plaint alleges
not only fraud in the execution of the deeds of sale sought to be annulled, but
total absence of cause or consideration. 
This allegation, if true, would render the contracts not merely voidable but absolutely void and inexistent (Arts. 1352,
1409(3), Civil Code).  Indeed the sales
were, on the face of the complaint, worse than fictitious, since the plaintiffs
had no intention – not even a simulated one – of executing them.  And the action to set aside a contract that is fictitious, or
absolutely void or inexistent, does not prescribe.  (Art. 1410, Civil Code; Borromeo vs. Borromeo, et al., 98
Phil. 432; Mapalo vs. Mapalo
G. R. No. L-21628, May
19, 1966).

In view of the said allegation, which was deemed hypothetically
admitted for purposes of the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the trial court
erred in dismissing the complaint.

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.

Reyes, J.B.L. (Acting C.J.), Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, and
Capistrano, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ.,
did not take part.

Concepcion, C.J., and Castro, J., are
on official leave.