The petitioner apparently relied solely on her bare testimony to establish her allegation of having been misled, and did not present other evidence for the purpose. She seemingly forgot that, firstly, her bare allegation of having been misled was not tantamount to proof, and that, secondly, she, as the party alleging a disputed fact, carried the burden of proving her allegation.[35] In other words, her main duty was to establish her allegation by preponderance of evidence, because her failure to do so would result in her defeat.[36] Alas, she did not discharge her burden.
On the other hand, the records contained clear indicia of her real intention vis-à-visher reacquisition of the two foreclosed properties. The letters and telegrams she had dispatched to DBP expressed the singular intention to repurchase both lots, not just the one covered by TCT No. 164711. That intention even became more evident and more definite when she set down the payment terms for the repurchase of both lots in her letter of August 31, 1982. Given all these, the CA rightly concluded that her written communications to DBP had revealed her earnest desire to re-acquire both foreclosed properties.
II
Article 1332 of the Civil Code
did not apply to the petitioner
The petitioner would have us consider that she had not given her full consent to the deed of conditional sale on account of her lack of legal and technical knowledge. In effect, she pleads for the application of Article 1332 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Article 1332. When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.
We cannot accede to the petitioner’s plea.
The pertinent terms of the deed of conditional sale read:
NOW THEREFORE for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and for the total sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P157,000.00), Philippine Currency, to be fully paid as hereinafter set forth, the VENDOR agrees to convey by way of sale and the VENDEE agrees to buy the above stated properties covered by TCT Nos. T-160929 and T-164117, more particularly described at the back hereof under the following terms and conditions:
That the downpayment shall be P55,500 and the balance of P101,500 to be paid in five (5) years on the quarterly amortization plan at 15% interest per annum the first amortization of P7,304.15 shall be due and payable 3 mos. from the date of execution of the Deed of Conditional Sale and all subsequent amortizations shall be due and payable every three (3) months thereafter;
That if the vendee fails to sign the sale document within 15 days from date of receipt of our notice of approval of the offer, the approval hereof shall be deemed automatically revoked and the deposit forfeited in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank.
The Vendee/s may pay the whole or part of the account under this contract at anytime during the term hereof; provided, however, that if the vendee/s is in default in the payment of at least six monthly amortizations, if payable monthly; two quarterly amortizations, if payable quarterly; one semi-annual and annual amortization if payable semi-annually and annually, the Vendor may, in its option, declare the whole account due and payable.
xxx
The title to the real estate property and all improvements thereon shall remain in the name of the vendor until after the purchase price, advances and interest shall have been fully paid. The Vendee/s agrees that in the event of his failure to pay the amortizations or installments as herein provided for, the contract shall, at the option of the Vendor, be deemed and considered annulled, and he shall forfeit, and by these presents, hereby waives whatever right he might have acquired to the said property. The Vendor shall then be at liberty to dispose of same as if this contract has never been made; and in the event of such annulment, all sums of money paid under the contract shall be considered and treated as rentals for the use of the property, and the Vendee/s waives all rights to ask or demand the return thereof and he further agrees to vacate peacefully and quietly said property, hereby waiving in favor of the Vendor whatever expenses he may have incurred in the property in the form of improvement or under any concept, without any right to reimbursement whatsoever.
xxx
It is hereby agreed, covenanted and stipulated by and between the parties hereto that should the Vendor decide to rescind this contract in view of the failure of the Vendee/s to pay the amortization/installments, when due, or otherwise fail/s to comply with any of the terms and conditions herein stipulated, and the Vendee/s refuse/s to peacefully deliver the possession of the property hereinbove mentioned to the Vendor, thereby obliging the Vendor to file suit in court with the view to taking possession thereof, the Vendee/s hereby agree/s to pay all the expenses of the suit incident thereto, all the damages that may be incurred thereby, as well as attorney’s fees which it is hereby agreed, shall be 10% of the total amount due and outstanding, but in no case shall it be less than P100.00.[37]
It is quite notable that the petitioner did not specify which of the stipulations of the deed of conditional sale she had difficulty or deficiency in understanding. Her generalized averment of having been misled should, therefore, be brushed aside as nothing but a last attempt to salvage a hopeless position. Our impression is that the stipulations of the deed of conditional sale were simply worded and plain enough for even one with a slight knowledge of English to easily understand.
The petitioner was not illiterate. She had appeared to the trial court to be educated, its cogent observation of her as “lettered” (supra, at p. 7 hereof) being based on how she had composed her correspondences to DBP. Her testimony also revealed that she had no difficulty understanding English, as the following excerpt shows:
ATTY. CUISON
Q : Mrs. Witness, last time you identified the document, captioned as Deed of Conditional Sale which was executed last January 21, 1983, it was read in English language, correct?
A : Yes, sir.
Q : And, could you testify in this Court without in need of interpreter?
A : Yes, sir.
Q : So, you are aware or comfortable with the English language?
A : Yes, sir.[38]
Nor was the petitioner’s ignorance of the true nature of the deed of conditional sale probably true. By her own admission, she had asked the bank officer why she had been made to sign a deed of conditional sale instead of an absolute sale, which in itself reflected her full discernment of the matters subject of her dealings with DBP, to wit:
COURT:
Q : Now, before you signed this Deed of Conditional Sale sometime on January 21, 1983, did you read this document?
A : Yes, your Honor, and I even told the officer of the Bank, that why it should be a Deed of Probitional Sale when in fact it should be a Deed of Absolute Sale because I paid already the full amount of P55,500.00 for the property covered by TCT No. 164117 and they told me that after a few amortizations on the other property, they are going to release the property which was paid in full but did not push through, Your Honor.[39]
Thereby revealed was her distinctive ability to understand written and spoken English, the language in which the terms of the contract she signed had been written.
Clearly, Article 1332 of the Civil Code does not apply to the petitioner. According to Lim v. Court of Appeals,[40] the provision came into being because a sizeable percentage of the country’s populace had comprised of illiterates, and the documents at the time had been written either in English or Spanish, viz:
In calibrating the credibility of the witnesses on this issue, we take our mandate from Article 1332 of the Civil Code which provides: “When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.” This substantive law came into being due to the finding of the Code Commission that there is still a fairly large number of illiterates in this country, and documents are usually drawn up in English or Spanish. It is also in accord with our state policy of promoting social justice. It also supplements Article 24 of the Civil Code which calls on court to be vigilant in the protection of the rights of those who are disadvantaged in life.[41] (Emphasis supplied)
x x x."
