ACABAL & NICOLAS VS. ACABAL ET AL. G.R. No. 148376, March 31, 2005 Carpio Morales, J.

DOCTRINE: Remedial Law. The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration. It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. Civil Law.One who seeks equity and justice must come to the court with clean hands, otherwise he have no remedy under the law if the parties are in pari delicto. Civil Law. The sale or other disposition of one or some co-owner affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to this grantor in the partition of the thing owned in common. FACTS: Respondent is the owner of a parcel of land conveyed to him his parents. Petitioner is his godson and nephew, and to whom he executed a deed of sale for the land in dispute. He alleges in the complaint that what he signed was a document for lease only instead of a deed of sale, prompting him to file a case for the annulment of the deed of sale. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not the failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document preclude a party from arguing against it (2) Whether or not the case falls under the doctrine of in pari delicto (3) Whether or not the land be considered a conjugal property by the respondent and his wife HELD: (1) NO. The failure to deny the genuineness and due execution of an actionable document does not preclude a party from arguing against it by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise, payment, statute of limitations, estoppel, and want of consideration. It is a basic rule in evidence that the burden of proof lies on the party who makes the allegations. If he claims a right granted by law, he must prove it by competent evidence, relying on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of his opponent. (2) YES. Even assuming that the disposition of the property by respondent was contrary to law, he would still have no remedy under the law as he and petitioner were in pari delicto, hence, he is not entitled to afirmative relief one who seeks equity and justice must come to court with clean hands. The exception under Article 1416 shall not apply since the protection contemplated refers to the beneficiary and not to the owner thereof. (3) YES. Since the property was acquired during the existence of the marriage, the presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code is that it is the couples conjugal property. Even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who

did not consent to the sale. This is because under the aforementioned codal provision, the sale or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to this grantor in the partition of the thing owned in common.