PERFECTION OF A CONTRACT OF SALE

Lim vs. San and Lo

G.R. No. 159723. September 9, 2004
Ynares-Santiago, J.

FACTS:
Petitioner Lim filed a complaint seeking the annulment of a Deed of Absolute Sale
involving a parcel of land executed by his mother in favor of the latters brother,
respondent San. Petitioner was the owner of the land covered by a certificate of title. He
alleged that respondent took undue advantage of the depressed mental state of his
mother, brought about by the demise of her late husband, by causing some papers to
sign which later turned out to be a Deed of Absolute Sale. According to him, no
consideration was ever paid and the signature was obtained through fraud and trickery.
He argued that the said document was void ab initio for lack of consideration and for
lack of valid consent. In response, the respondent claimed that there was full payment
of the consideration for the subject property and the title registered in his name was
validly and regularly issued because petitioners mother freely and voluntarily gave her
consent to the sale.
ISSUE:
Is the Deed of Absolute Sale valid?
HELD:
Yes, the Deed of Absolute Sale is valid. A contract has three essential elements, or
those without which there can be no contract: consent, subject matter and cause.
Knowledge of these essential elements is material because the perfection stage or the
birth of the contract only occurs when the parties to a contract agree upon the essential
elements of the same. A contract of sale is consensual, as such it is perfected by mere
consent. Consent is essential for the existence of a contract, and where it is wanting,
the contract is non-existent. Consent in contracts presupposes the following requisites:
(1) it should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it
should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. Intelligence in consent is vitiated by
error; freedom by violence, intimidation or undue influence; and spontaneity by fraud.
Thus, a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation, undue
influence or fraud is voidable.
Contrary to the allegations of the petitioner that the consent of his mother to the deed of
sale was vitiated, a perusal of the records of this case showed that the petitioner failed
to establish that violence, intimidation and undue influence vitiated the consent of his
mother to the deed of sale pertaining to the subject property. In determining whether

consent is vitiated by the circumstances provided for in Article 1330 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines, courts are given a wide latitude in weighing the facts or circumstances
in a given case and in deciding in favor of what they believe to have actually occurred,
considering the age, physical infirmity, intelligence, relationship and the conduct of the
parties at the time of making the contract and subsequent thereto.
While it is true that upon the death of his father, his mother returned to the Philippines
and subsequently stayed at the house of the respondent, such fact per se is not
sufficient to establish that the latter employed intimidation, violence or undue influence
upon the former. Defect or lack of valid consent, in order to make the contract voidable,
must be established by full, clear and convincing evidence, and not merely by a
preponderance thereof. Petitioners mere allegations that respondent threatened his
mother with harm if she will not sign the contract failed to measure up to the yardstick of
evidence required, not only to prove vitiation of consent, but also to overturn the
presumption that private transactions have been fair and regular.