JOSEFA DE LA CRUZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. GELASIO CAPINPIN AND JULIANA ALBEA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Nueva Ecija on the 27th day of January, 1915. Its purpose was to recover of the
defendants, as rent for the use and occupation of three parcels of
land, 774 cavans of palay. The defendants answered by general and special
denial. In their special defense the defendants allege that on the 21st day of
May, 1914, they had rented from the plaintiff the said parcels of land,
promising to pay for the use and occupation of the same 774 cavanes of
palay per year; that said land had been sold under a pacto de retro;
that the plaintiff had conceded them a new term within which to purchase said
land and that they did repurchase the same upon the 29th day of May, 1914, and
that by reason of said repurchase (on May 29, 1914), the said contract of rent,
by virtue of which they were to pay to the plaintiff the said 774 cavanes of
palay per year, had been cancelled, and that they had been relieved from the
payment of said palay. Upon the issue thus presented the cause was duly tried,
and after hearing the evidence the Honorable V. Nepomuceno, judge, reached the
conclusion: (a) That the plaintiff had rented three parcels of
land to the defendants, composed of 27, 20 and 5 hectares, respectively, for the
amount of 774 cavanes of palay, payable annually; (b) that by
virtue of a subsequent agreement, the defendants had been relieved from the
payment of the rent upon the parcel composed of 27 hectares, but were still
under obligation to pay the rent upon the other two parcels composed of 20 and 5
hectares, respectively, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendants for the amount of 372 cavanes, 2
gantas, and 7 chupas of palay, and that the value of each
cavan was P2.75. From that judgment each of the respective parties appealed to
this court.

Plaintiff-appellant insists that the lower court committed an error in not
rendering a judgment in her favor for the amount of 774 cavans of palay. The
defendants-appellants allege that the lower court committed an error in deciding
that they were obligated to pay or deliver to the plaintiff 372
cavanes, 2 gantas, and 7 chupas of palay for the use
and occupation of the two parcels of land composed of 20 and 5 hectares,
respectively.

An examination of the record and of the evidence adduced during the trial of
the cause shows that certain facts are not disputed. They may be stated as
follows:

1. That on the 11th day of May, 1911, Juliana Albea, then a widow, sold to
Victoria Enriquez, under a pacto de retro, a parcel of land composed of
27 hectares for the sum of P3,000, with the privilege of repurchasing the same
within a period of two years. (Exhibit B, page 29.)

2. That later and on the 20th day of May, 1912, the said Juliana Albea, a
widow, borrowed an additional sum of P2,000 and 300 cavanes of palay
from Victoriana Enriquez and issued a second pacto de retro to
Victoriana Enriquez upon said parcel of 27 hectares of land, reserving the right
to repurchase the said land on or before the 11th day of March, 1913. (Exhibit
C, page 31.)

3. That on the first day of May, 1914, Juliana Albea, having lost her right
to repurchase of Victoriana Enriquez the 27 hectares of land, and the title to
the same having been consolidated in favor of Victoriana Enriquez, she sold,
transferred and delivered said parcel (of 27 hectares) to Josefa de la Cruz for
the sum of P5,000. (Exhibit D, page 33.)

4. That on the 19th day of May, 1914, Juliana Albea and her husband, Gelasio
Capinpin, sold to Josefa de la Cruz two parcels of land composed of 20 and 5
hectares respectively, for the sum of P1,450 under a pacto de retro,
reserving the right to repurchase said two parcels of land within a period of
one year. (Exhibit E, page 35.) Said Exhibit E appears to have been acknowledged
and ratified on the 30th day of June, 1914, before a notary public, Lorenzo A.
Dionisio.

5. That on the 19th day of May, 1914, Josefa de la Cruz, having become the
absolute owner of said parcel of 27 hectares (Exhibit D) and the owner, under a
pacto de retro, of parcels composed of 20 and 5 hectares, respectively
(Exhibit E), she entered into a contract of rent with the said Juliana Albea and
Gelasio Capinpin for the use and occupation of the said three parcels of land,
by virtue of which contract they promised to pay for the use of said
three parcels of land 774 cavanes of palay annually, to be
paid in the month of March (May) of each year. (Exhibit A, page 27.) Said
Exhibit A was acknowledged and ratified on the 22d day of May, 1914, before
Lorenzo A. Dionisio, a notary public.

The rent stipulated for in the contract known as Exhibit A (Exhibit A, page
27) not having been paid by the defendants, the present action was instituted
for the purpose of recovering the same. During the trial of the cause the
defendants attempted to show; by oral and documentary evidence (Exhibits 1 and
2), that they had been relieved from the obligation of paying the said 774
cavanes of palay by reason of the fact that they had repurchased of
Josefa de la Cruz for the sum of P5,000 the parcel of land composed of 27
hectares. They further attempted to show by said exhibits (Exhibits 1 and 2)
that having been relieved from the necessity of paying the 774 cavanes
of palay because of the alleged repurchase of the said parcel of 27 hectares, no
part of said amount of palay ‘could be recovered from them for the use and
occupation of the parcels composed of 20 and 5 hectares, respectively.

Exhibit 1 is supposed to have been signed by Josefa de la Cruz, with her
mark, on the 29th day of May, 1914, and acknowledged and ratified on the same
day before Ramon Balino, a notary public. Exhibit 2 purports to have been signed
by Josefa de la Cruz and Juliana Albea on the 21st day of May, 1914, and
acknowledged and ratified on the same day before Ramon Balino, a notary
public.

Josefa de la Cruz, while she acknowledges that she signed with her mark
Exhibits 1 and 2, alleges that she was induced so to do by virtue of the
representations which were made to her by Lorenzo A. Dionisio, acting for and on
behalf of Juliana Albea and her husband, for the purpose of substituting said
Exhibit A which they claimed, and represented to her as having been destroyed.
She asserts that she cannot read nor write and that she signed said documents
under the misrepresentations of Lorenzo A. Dionisio and the defendants and under
the belief that they were to be substituted, for the reasons above stated, for
Exhibit A.

Exhibits 1 and 2 are supposed to have been signed and acknowledged by Josefa
de la Cruz in the presence of Ramon Balino, a notary public. Ramon Balino was
called as a witness and under oath stated that said documents (Exhibits 1 and 2)
were brought to his office by Lorenzo A. Dionisio; that he did not see Josefa de
la Cruz sign either of said documents; that he added his notarial certificate
upon the representation of Lorenzo A. Dionisio that he would bring Josefa de la
Cruz to his office for the purpose of acknowledging her signature later; that
Lorenzo A. Dionisio never brought Josefa de la Cruz to his office and that she
never did acknowledge her signature to said documents.

In addition to the foregoing facts and circumstances, which strongly indicate
that Josefa de la Cruz was induced to sign Exhibits 1 and 2, by means of false
representations, an examination of said exhibits themselves furnish
corroborative proof of that fact. In the first place, Exhibit 2 recites that
Juliana Albea had sold to Josefa de la Cruz, under a pacto de retro,
for the sum of P5,000 a parcel of land, and that said pacto de retro
had been signed and acknowledged before Miguel Lugo, a notary public; that
Juliana Albea had rented said parcel of land from Josefa de la Cruz for the
amount of 774 cavanes of palay, to be paid annually; that said quantity of palay
was payable in the month of May each year. Those facts are set out in Exhibit 2.
There is no proof whatever in the record that Juliana Albea had sold to Josefa
de la Cruz any parcel of land whatever for the sum of P5,000; and, furthermore,
there is no proof in the record that any contract had ever been executed between
them before the notary public, Miguel Lugo. Exhibit 1 also contains misrecitals
of fact. Exhibit 1 recites that Josefa de la Cruz had received from Juliana
Albea the sum of P5,000 in the repurchase of said parcel of 27 hectares, while
there is no proof whatever in the record that Josefa de la Cruz had purchased
said parcel of land from Juliana Albea. On the contrary, the proof shows
positively, by Exhibit D, that Josefa de la Cruz had purchased said parcel,
composed of 27 hectares, from Victoriana Enriquez.

We are fully persuaded from the facts contained in the record that Josef a de
la Cruz did not intend to sign Exhibits 1 and 2, and would not have signed them
had she known their purport and contents; that she was induced to sign said
exhibits by reason of the false and fraudulent representations made to her by
the defendants, to wit, that said exhibits were executed and delivered to take
the place of Exhibit A, which the defendants claimed had been destroyed. The
defendants having taken advantage of the age and ignorance of Josefa de la Cruz,
and having induced her, by means of false and fraudulent representations, to
sign a contract different from that she intended to sign, is sufficient in law
and fact to justify the courts in furnishing relief against the effect and
operation of such a contract.

It may be proved by parol evidence that a contract was fraudulently misread
to one not able to read, and that he was thus induced to give his signature; and
when such facts are fully established, the contract should be annulled and set
aside. (McKessons vs. Sherman, 51 Wis., 303; Kranich vs.
Sherwood, 92 Mich., 397.)

After a careful examination of the record, and considering the facts above
set out and many others contained in the record to which reference might be
made, we are fully persuaded that Exhibits 1 and 2 are false and fraudulent
documents; that they were executed and delivered by false and fraudulent
representations and made for the purpose of defrauding Josefa de la Cruz; that
the defendants entered into a contract of rent with the plaintiff for the use
and occupation of the said three parcels of land, promising to pay therefor the
amount of 774 cavanes of palay annually; that said amount of palay has
not been paid; that it remains due and unpaid, and that the judgment of the
lower court should be reversed and that a judgment should be entered in favor of
the plaintiff and against the defendants for the sum of 774 cavanes of
palay, to be paid each and every year during the pendency of said contract,
together with costs; with the further provision that if the defendants shall
fail to pay the said amount of palay, that they shall pay in lieu thereof for
each and every cavan of palay which they fail to deliver the sum of P2.75. So
ordered.

Believing, as we do, that Lorenzo A. Dionisio and Ramon Balino, notaries
public, contributed in no small degree to the fraud which was perpetrated upon
Josefa de la Cruz, we respectfully call the attention of the Attorney-General to
the facts in the record in the present case relating to such frauds which were
committed, for such action in the premises as he may deem wise and necessary to
take.

Torres, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, and Fisher, JJ.,
concur.