SPS. BUENAVENTURA v. CA



SPS. BUENAVENTURA ET. AL. v. CA
G.R. No. 126376 : November 20, 2003

FACTS

Petitioners sought to declare as null and void ab initio certain deeds of sale of real property executed by their parents, respondents Feliciana and Leonardo, in favor of their co-respondents-children and the corresponding certificates of title issued in their names.

Petitioners alleged among others:

  • the sale of the subject properties impaired their legitime
  • . that there was no actual valid consideration for the deeds of sale
  • even assuming that there was indeed consideration, the price was grossly inadequate [the properties are more than three-fold times more valuable than the measly sums appearing therein]


Respondent parents and siblings counter:
  • .       petitioners do not have legal interest to assail the deeds of sale
  • .       the sales were accompanied by sufficient considerations

TC: DISMISSED
CA: AFFIRMED TC'


ISSUES

  1. 1W/N petitioners have legal interest to assail the deeds of sale
  2. 2W/N the deeds of sale are void for lack of consideration
  3. 3W/N the deeds of sale are void for gross inadequacy of price

RULING

1. NO. PETITIONERS HAVE NO LEGAL INTEREST TO ASSAIL THE DEEDS OF SALE.
Petitioners' right to their parents' properties is merely inchoate and vests only upon their parents' death. While still living, the parents of petitioners are free to dispose of their properties. The sale of the lots to their siblings does not affect the value of their parents' estate because while the sale of the lots reduced the estate, the cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken from the estate.

2. NO. THE DEEDS OF SALE ARE NOT VOID FOR LACK OF CONSIDERATION.
The payment of the price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Failure to pay the consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing valid contract, while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract. In the case at bar, petitioners failed to show that the prices in the Deeds of Sale were absolutely simulated. As of the filing of the complaint, respondent siblings have also fully paid the price to their respondent father.

3. NO. THE DEEDS OF SALE ARE NOT VOID FOR GROSS INADEQUACY OF PRICE.

“Art. 1355.Except in cases specified by law, lesion or inadequacy of cause shall not invalidate a contract unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue influence.”

Petitioners failed to prove any of the instances mentioned in Articles 1355 and 1470 of the Civil Code which would invalidate, or even affect, the Deeds of Sale.

Indeed, there is no requirement that the price be equal to the exact value of the subject matter of sale. All the respondents believed that they received the commutative value of what they gave.

The Court did not disturb the ruling of the trial court that the lots were sold for a valid consideration, and that the respondents-children actually paid the purchase price stipulated in their respective Deeds of Sale.

DISMISSED

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIR v. DLSU

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, INC., [G.R. No. 196596. November 9, 2016.]   FACTS: In 2004, the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued to DLSU Letter of Authority (LOA) No. 2794 authorizing its revenue officers to examine the latter's books of accounts and other accounting records for all internal revenue taxes for the period Fiscal Year Ending 2003 and Unverified Prior Years. BIR through a Formal Letter of Demand assessed DLSU the following deficiency taxes: (1) income tax on rental earnings from restaurants/canteens and bookstores operating within the campus; (2) VAT business income; and (3) documentary stamp tax (DST) on loans and lease contracts. The BIR demanded the payment of P17,303,001.12, inclusive of surcharge, interest and penalty for taxable years 2001, 2002 and 2003. DLSU protested the assessment. The Commissioner failed to act on the protest; thus, DLSU filed on August 3, 2005 a petition for review with the CTA Division. ...
Read more

DIRECTOR OF LANDS vs. IAC

  DIRECTOR OF LANDS V. IAC   G.R. No. 73002 | December 29, 1986 FACTS The Director of Lands has brought this appeal by certiorari from a judgment of the IAC affirming a decision of the CFI of Isabela, which ordered registration in favor of Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc. of 5 parcels of land, acquired by it from Mariano and Acer Infiel , members of the Dumagat tribe .   The appealed judgment sums up the findings of the trial court: That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario is a corporation duly organized in accordance with the laws That Acme Plywood & Veneer Co. Inc., represented by Mr. Rodolfo Nazario can acquire real properties pursuant to the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation That the land subject of the Land Registration proceeding was ancestrally acquired by Acme Plywood & Veneer Co., Inc., on October 29, 1962, from Mariano Infiel and Acer Infiel, both members of ...
Read more

CIR v. PAGCOR

  COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, petitioner , vs. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, and PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION, respondents   G.R. No. 177387, November 9, 2016   FACTS :   PAGCOR has operated under a legislative franchise granted by PD No. 1869, in its Charter, 4 whose Section 13 (2) provides that: (2) Income and other Taxes — (a) Franchise Holder: No tax of any kind or form, income or otherwise, as well as fees, charges or levies of whatever nature, whether National or Local, shall be assessed and collected under this Franchise from the Corporation; nor shall any form of tax or charge attach in any way to the earnings of the Corporation, except a Franchise Tax of five percent (5%) of the gross revenue or earnings derived by the Corporation from its operation under this Franchise.   Notwithstanding the aforesaid 5% franchise tax imposed, the BIR issued several assessments against PAGCOR of P13,710,145,629.67 for alleged defic...
Read more