Mapalo vs.

Mapalo
Nos. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966.
BENGZON, J.P. J.:

FACTS
Miguel and Candida Mapalo were illiterate farmers and owned a parcel of land. Since Maximo Mapalo was to be
married, they donated to him the eastern half of the land. Maximo, however, deceived them by making them sign
an instrument donating the entire lot. There was a consideration for P5,000 stated in the deed, but the spouses
never received anything. Miguel built a fence to divide the lot and continued to occupy the western part. Maximo
then registered the entire lot and 13 year after, sold the same to the Narcisos who took possession only of the
eastern half. Later on, the Narcisos sought to be declared owners of the entire land; the spouses claimed that the
sale to the Narcisos was void for lack of consideration. The CA declared that the sale was merely voidable and the
action by the spouses was barred by prescription, being filed after 4 years from the discovery of the fraud.

ISSUE: WON there was a valid contract of sale.

RULING:

The contract of sale is not valid.

Rule: The rule under the Civil Code, be it the old or the new, is that contracts without a cause or consideration
produce no effect whatsoever. (Art. 1275, Old Civil Code; Art. 1352, New Civil Code.) Nonetheless, under the Old
Civil Code, the statement of a false consideration renders the contract voidable, unless it is proven that it is
supported by another real and licit consideration. (Art. 1276, Old Civil Code.)

A contract that states a false consideration is one that has in fact a real consideration but the same is not the one
stated in the document. (Manresa, Codigo Civil, Tomo VIII, Vol. II, p. 354.)

Statement that purchase price was paid but in fact never been paid to the vendor. A contract of purchase and sale
is void and produces no effect whatsoever where the same is without cause or consideration in that the purchase
price, which appears thereon as paid, has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.

Application: In this instant case, the consideration was totally absent. The P5,000 price stipulated was never
received/delivered to the spouses. Thus, the sale to the Narcisos was VOID ab initio for want of consideration. The
inexistence of the contract is permanent and cannot be the subject of prescription. The Narcisos are also in bad
faiththey had knowledge of the true nature and extent of Maximos right over the land.