Scribd
Upload
441 views2 pages

Bough Vs Cantiveros Digest

This case involves a dispute over ownership of property that was originally owned by Matilde Cantiveros but was transferred to Basilia Bough through a deed of sale. Cantiveros claimed the sale was fraudulent and asked the court to declare it null. The trial court found in favor of Cantiveros, declaring the deed fictitious and null. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that while Cantiveros did not specifically deny the authenticity of the deed under oath, she could still argue the defenses of fraud and lack of consideration. The Court found the deed was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud and upheld the lower court's decision.

Uploaded by

Erik Soriano
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
441 views2 pages

Bough Vs Cantiveros Digest

This case involves a dispute over ownership of property that was originally owned by Matilde Cantiveros but was transferred to Basilia Bough through a deed of sale. Cantiveros claimed the sale was fraudulent and asked the court to declare it null. The trial court found in favor of Cantiveros, declaring the deed fictitious and null. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that while Cantiveros did not specifically deny the authenticity of the deed under oath, she could still argue the defenses of fraud and lack of consideration. The Court found the deed was obtained through misrepresentation and fraud and upheld the lower court's decision.

Uploaded by

Erik Soriano
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

BASILIA BOUGH and GUSTAVUS BOUGH, plaintiffs-appellants, vs.

MATILDE CANTIVEROS and PRESBITERA HANOPOL, defendants-appellees FACTS: This action was begun in the Court of First Instance of Leyte, pursuant to a complaint by means of which the plaintiffs Basilia Bough and ustavus Bough sought to have themselves put in possession of the property covered by the deed of sale, and to re!uire the defendant "atilde Cantiveros to pay the plaintiffs the sum of five hundreds pesos by way of damages, and to pay the costs. "atilde Cantiveros answered with a general denial and a special defense, not sworn to, in which she as#ed that $udgment be rendered declaring the contract of sale theretofore made between herself and Basilia Bough null. The plaintiffs, thereupon, denied under oath the genuineness and due e%ecution of the so-called donation intervivos set forth in the answer "atilde Cantiveros is reputed to be the richest resident of the municipality of Carigara, Leyte. In the latter part of the year &'&(, she was the owner of various parcels of realty of the value of thirty thousand pesos or more )n *ecember +,, &'&+, "atilde Cantiveros and her husband -ose .as!ue/, signed a marital contract of separation 0t this time there lived with "atilde Cantiveros, Basilia 1anopol, a cousin and protege since childhood, who was married to ustavus Bough. For this reason, ustavus Bough was regarded by "atilde Cantiveros with great confidence, even as her child. Through the influence of ustavus Bough, who brought a story to "atilde Cantiveros that her husband -ose .as!ue/ was in town and might contest the contract for the separation of the con$ugal property, "atilde Cantiveros was induced to sign a fictitious contract of sale of all her property to Basilia Bough. This document, introduced in evidence as 2%hibit 0, was prepared in due from and ac#nowledged before a notary public, the amount of the consideration, ten thousand pesos, being last inserted with a pen. By this deed, "atilde Cantiveros purported to convey si%ty-three parcels of land, the real value of which was over thirty thousand pesos, for ten thousand pesos, although no evidence that any such sum ever passed between the parties was introduced, to her cousin, Basilia Bough. In order to reassure "atilde Cantiveros that they would not ta#e advantage of the fictitious sale, ustavus Bough and Basilia Bough prepared and signed another document, introduced in evidence as 2%hibit &, which is a donation by them to "atilde Cantiveros of all the property mentioned in 2%hibit 0, to be effective in case of the death of themselves and their children before the death of "atilde Cantiveros. The defendant, "atilde Cantiveros, has remained in possession of the property 0fter trial, $udgment was rendered by the 1onorable 3. 2. "c"ahon, $udge of first instance, in favor of the defendants, declaring the deed of sale, 2%hibit 0, fictitious, null,

and without effect, and absolving the defendants from the complaint, with costs against the plaintiffs It is from this $udgment through the ordinary means of perfection of a bill of e%ceptions that the case is brought to T12 45672"2 C)57T.

ISSUE: 8In this case there was no specific denial of the genuiness and due e%ecution of the documents by "atilde Cantiveros.9 4) the issue is whether or not the failure to specifically deny the genuiness and the due e%ecution of the instruments is fatal to the defense of "atilde Cantiveros. HELD: The 4upreme Court held that although the defendants did not deny the genuineness and due e%ecution of the contract of sale of *ecember ', &'&(, under oath, yet the defendants could properly set up the defenses of fraud and want of consideration. In this instance, the grantor, reposing faith in the integrity of the grantee, and relying on a suggested occurrence, which did not in fact ta#e place, was made the dupe of the grantee, and led into an agreement against public policy. The party as#ing to be relieved from the agreement which she was induced to enter into by means of fraud, was thus in delicto, but not in pari delicto with the other party. The deed was procured by misrepresentation and fraud sufficient to vitiate the transaction. The rights of creditors are not affected. 3e feel that $ustice will be done if we place the grantor in the position in which she was before these transactions were entered into

You might also like