7/14/2019 Bough vs Modesto

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bough-vs-modesto 1/1

G.R. No. 13300 September 29, 1919 

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

MATILDE CANTIVEROS and PRESBITERA HANOPOL, defendants-

appellees.

FACTS:

Matilde Cantiveros is reputed to be the richest resident of the municipality

of Carigara, Leyte. On December 24, 1912, Matilde Cantiveros and her

husband Jose Vasquez, signed a marital contract of separation. At this time

there lived with Matilde Cantiveros, Basilia Hanopol, a cousin and protege

since childhood, who was married to Gustavus Bough. For this reason,

Gustavus Bough was regarded by Matilde Cantiveros with great

confidence, even as her child. Through the influence of Gustavus Bough,

who brought a story to Matilde Cantiveros that her husband Jose Vasquez

was in town and might contest the contract for the separation of the

conjugal property, Matilde Cantiveros was induced to sign a fictitious

contract of sale of all her property to Basilia Bough. This document,

introduced in evidence as Exhibit A, was prepared in due from and

acknowledged before a notary public, the amount of the consideration, ten

thousand pesos, being last inserted with a pen. By this deed, Matilde

Cantiveros purported to convey sixty-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 Matilde

Cantiveros that they would not take advantage of the fictitious sale,

Gustavus Bough and Basilia Bough prepared and signed another document,introduced in evidence as Exhibit 1, which is a donation by them to Matilde

Cantiveros of all the property mentioned in Exhibit A, to be effective in

case of the death of themselves and their children before the death of 

Matilde Cantiveros. The defendant, Matilde Cantiveros, has remained in

possession of the property.

ISSUE: WON the will was validly procured by the plaintiffs-appellents.

HELD:

No. The grantor, reposing faith in the integrity of the grantee, and relying

on a suggested occurrence, which did not in fact take place, was made the

dupe of the grantee, and led into an agreement against public policy. The

party asking 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. We feel that justice will be done if we place the grantor in the

position in which she was before these transactions were entered into.