Mabel
Sierra vs. CA
Petitioner: Armando Sierra
Respondent: Court of Appeals, Epifania Ebarle, Sol and
Ele Ebarle
Ponente: J. Cruz
Doctrine:
 Absent of strong, complete, and conclusive
evidence, the promissory note is deemed valid
 Fraud
 Definition (Art. 1338, Civil Code)
 Insidious words or
machinations of one of
the parties
 Induced to enter into a
contract
 Makes a contract voidable (Art.
1344, Civil Code)
 Serious fraud
 Not employed by both
parties
Facts
1. Promissory note between Sierra and the
respondents Ebarle
a. That the Ebarles received the sum of
Php 85, 000.00 from Sierra
b. Due on or before Oct. 8, 1984
c. In case of default – the Ebarles are to
shoulder all expenses incurred in the
collection & attorney’s fees plus 12%
interest per annum
2. Sierra filed the complaint  sought recovery of
the sum he allegedly lent the Ebarles under the
said promissory note
3. Ebarle’s arguments
a. Note was executed under duress, fear
and undue influence
b. Real amount of loan is only Php
20,000.00 (representing Epifania
Ebarle’s loan to Sierra)
c. They initially objected but they
eventually agreed because Sierra said
that the notes were for mere formality
d. Sierra told them that if a complaint was
filed against them for recovery under the
notes, what they should do was not
answer so that they would be declared
in default
4. Sierra’s arguments
a. Testified that he lent the Ebarles the
sum of Php 85,000.00 (*not important*
which they said they needed to pay
some cattle for fattening to be inspected
by the inspector of the Land Bank that
day in connection with their application
for a loan og Php 400,000.00 from the
said bank to finance their businesses)
b. When the loan became due, Sierra
made demands which were ignored
5. RTC – declared the promissory note as invalid
6. CA – affirmed RTC
Provisions
Art. 1337. There is undue influence when a person takes
improper advantage of his power over the will of another,
depriving the latter of a reasonable freedom of choice.
The following circumstances shall be considered: the
confidential, family, spiritual and other relations between
the parties, or the fact that the person alleged to have
been unduly influenced was suffering from mental
weakness, or was ignorant or in financial distress.
Art. 1338. There is fraud when, through insidious
words or machinations of one of the contracting
parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract
which without them, he would not have agreed to.
Art. 1344. In order that fraud may make a contract
voidable, it should be serious and should not have been
employed by both contracting parties.
Issue: WON there was fraud that would render the
promissory note invalid? No
Ruling + Ratio: Absent of strong, complete, and
conclusive evidence, the promissory note is deemed
valid
1. Terms of the agreement have been reduced to
writing
a. The Rules of Court provide that when
reduced to writing, no evidence of the
terms of the agreement may be
accepted other than the contents of the
writing
b. Parol evidence may be accepted,
provided some requirements are fulfilled
 not present in the case at bar
2. Ebarles are educated persons
a. Presumed that they fully understood the
import and consequences of what they
signed
b. Contract is in plain English
3. On the allegation that the loan is only Php
20,000.00
a. The Php 20,000.00 is the loan of their
mother alone  why would the other
two also sign the note
b. Natural reaction is to demand the
correction of the note to reflect the true
amount
4. On fraud or dolo – Sol Ebarle admitted that
no harassment or threat in any form was
employed by petitioner; claim on fraud must
be supported by evidence
a. Undue influence
i. Definition (Art. 1337, Civil Code)
Mabel
1. Improper advantage
2. Considerations: family,
spiritual, and other
relations between the
parties, or mental
weakness, or was
ignorant or in financial
distress
ii. According to Tolentino
1. Controlled the volition
and induced him to give
his consent; destroy his
free agency  cannot
determine the
advantage or
disadvantage of a
proposed contract
b. Fraud
i. Definition (Art. 1338, Civil Code)
1. Insidious words or
machinations of one of
the parties
2. Induced to enter into a
contract
ii. Makes a contract voidable (Art.
1344, Civil Code)
1. Serious fraud
2. Not employed by both
parties
5. Non-presentation at the trial of the notary public
 does not render the contract invalid
a. Promissory note does not have to be
notarized to be binding
b. Upon signature of the parties,
respondents are bound to honor it as a
legitimate obligation duly assumed by
him through the signature