Case Digest: Mendezona v. Ozamiz

MARIO J. MENDEZONA ,et al,petitioners, versus JULIO H. OZAMIZ,et al, respondents
February 6, 2002

Facts:

A suit was instituted on September 25, 1991 by the petitioner spouses Mario J. Mendezona and Teresita M. Mendezona as initial plaintiff and in the amended complaint filed on October 7, 1991, herein co-petitioner spouses Luis J. Mendezona joined as co-plaintiff. In their compliant, the petitioners as plaintiff therein alleged that petitioner spouses Mario J. Mendezona and Teresita M. Mendezona petitioner spouses Luis J. Mendezona and Maricar Mendezona own a parcel of land each in Lahug, Cebu city with similar areas 3462, 3466 and 3468 square meters covered and described in TCT Nos 116834, 116835 and 116836. The petitioners ultimately traced their titles of ownership over their respective properties from a deed of Absolute Sale executed in their favor by Carmen Ozamiz and in consideration of P 1,040,000. It appears than on January 15, 1991, the respondents instituted the petition for guardianship with RTC Oroquieta, City alleging that Carmen Ozamiz had become disoriented and could not recognize most of her friends and could no longer take care of her properties by reason pf weak mind and absentmindedness. As guardians Roberto J. Montalvan and Julio H. Ozamiz filed on August 6, 1991 with the guardianship court their Inventories and Accounts including the 10,369 square meters Lahug property. Said Lahug property covered by deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 executed by Carmen Ozamiz in favor of petitioners. In their Answer, respondents opposed the claim of ownership of the Lahug property and alleged that the titles issued to the petitioners are defective and illegal and the ownership of said properties was acquired in bad faith and without value inasmuch as the consideration for the sale is grossly inadequate and unconscionable. Respondents further alleged that on April 28, 1989 Carmen Ozamiz was already ailing and not in full possession of her mental faculties; and that her properties having been placed in administration, she was in effect incapacitated to contract with petitioners. On September 23, 1992, the Trial court rendered decision in favor of petitioners. On appeal the Court of Appeal reversed its decision and ruled that the Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 was a simulated contract since the petitioners failed to prove that the consideration was actually paid.

Issue:

Whether the court erred in ruling that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 was a simulated contract.

Held:

The Supreme Court ruled that the contact was not simulated. Contrary to the erroneous conclusions of the appellate court, a simulated contract cannot be inferred from the mere non production of checks. It was not the burden of the petitioner to prove so. It is significant that the deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 is a notarized document duly acknowledged before a notary public. As such, it is in favor of presumption of regularity and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. Moreover, A person is not incapacitated to contact merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities. Only when such age or infirmity impair her mental faculties to such extent as to prevent her from properly, intelligently, and fairly protecting her property rights is considered incapacitated.