AVELINA ABARIENTOS REBUSQUILLO [substituted by her heirs, except Emelinda R.
Gualvez] and SALVADOR A. OROSCO, Petitioners, vs. SPS. DOMINGO and EMELINDA
REBUSQUILLO GUALVEZ and the CITY ASSESSOR OF LEGAZPI CITY,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 204029, June 4, 2014
Doctrine:
An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative simulation, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real agreement. (Art. 1346, NCC)
Facts:
Petitioner was one of the seven children of deceased, Eulalio Abarientos and Victoria Villareal. Both of them died intestate. The deceased left a parcel of land in Legazpi City. In 2001, respondent Emelinda (daughter of petitioner), made petitioner sign two documents. In 2003, the petitioner discovered that the two documents were an affidavit of self-adjudication, and a deed of absolute sale in favor of the respondent spouses. Petitioner then filed an action to annul the two documents before the RTC. In the respondents’ answer, they admitted the execution of the affidavit and deed, but they argued that it was with the consent of all the heirs of Eulalio and Victoria, and that such was agreed to be done to facilitate the titling of the property. Respondents further argued that the petitioner received the amount of Php 50,000 for the sale.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. The CA reversed the RTC’s decision and said that the affidavit and the sale were valid.
Issue:
Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication and the sale are valid
Held:
No. The petition is granted. Both the affidavit and the deed of sale are void.
Ratio:
An Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is the sole heir of the decedent. (Sec. 1, Rule 74, ROC). As admitted by respondents, Avelina was not the sole heir of Eulalio. In fact, as admitted by respondents, petitioner Salvador is one of the co-heirs by right of representation of his mother. Without a doubt, Avelina had perjured herself when she declared in the affidavit that she is the only daughter and sole heir of spouses Eulalio and Victoria. The falsity of this claim renders her act of adjudicating to herself the inheritance left by her father invalid.
In effect, Avelina was not in the right position to sell and transfer the absolute ownership of the subject property to respondents. As she was not the sole heir of Eulalio and her Affidavit of Self- Adjudication is void, the subject property is still subject to partition. Avelina, in fine, did not have the absolute ownership of the subject property but only an aliquot portion. What she could have transferred to respondents was only the ownership of such aliquot portion. It is apparent from the admissions of respondents and the records of this case that Avelina had no intention to transfer the ownership, of whatever extent, over the property to respondents. Hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale is nothing more than a simulated contract.
G.R. No. 204029, June 4, 2014
Doctrine:
An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative simulation, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real agreement. (Art. 1346, NCC)
Facts:
Petitioner was one of the seven children of deceased, Eulalio Abarientos and Victoria Villareal. Both of them died intestate. The deceased left a parcel of land in Legazpi City. In 2001, respondent Emelinda (daughter of petitioner), made petitioner sign two documents. In 2003, the petitioner discovered that the two documents were an affidavit of self-adjudication, and a deed of absolute sale in favor of the respondent spouses. Petitioner then filed an action to annul the two documents before the RTC. In the respondents’ answer, they admitted the execution of the affidavit and deed, but they argued that it was with the consent of all the heirs of Eulalio and Victoria, and that such was agreed to be done to facilitate the titling of the property. Respondents further argued that the petitioner received the amount of Php 50,000 for the sale.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner. The CA reversed the RTC’s decision and said that the affidavit and the sale were valid.
Issue:
Whether or not the affidavit of self-adjudication and the sale are valid
Held:
No. The petition is granted. Both the affidavit and the deed of sale are void.
Ratio:
An Affidavit of Self-Adjudication is only proper when the affiant is the sole heir of the decedent. (Sec. 1, Rule 74, ROC). As admitted by respondents, Avelina was not the sole heir of Eulalio. In fact, as admitted by respondents, petitioner Salvador is one of the co-heirs by right of representation of his mother. Without a doubt, Avelina had perjured herself when she declared in the affidavit that she is the only daughter and sole heir of spouses Eulalio and Victoria. The falsity of this claim renders her act of adjudicating to herself the inheritance left by her father invalid.
In effect, Avelina was not in the right position to sell and transfer the absolute ownership of the subject property to respondents. As she was not the sole heir of Eulalio and her Affidavit of Self- Adjudication is void, the subject property is still subject to partition. Avelina, in fine, did not have the absolute ownership of the subject property but only an aliquot portion. What she could have transferred to respondents was only the ownership of such aliquot portion. It is apparent from the admissions of respondents and the records of this case that Avelina had no intention to transfer the ownership, of whatever extent, over the property to respondents. Hence, the Deed of Absolute Sale is nothing more than a simulated contract.
The Civil Code provides:
Art. 1345. Simulation of a contract may be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true agreement.
Art. 1346. An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative simulation, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real agreement.
In the present case, respondents admitted that the purpose of the sale was to facilitate titling and not the transfer of ownership.
SOURCE: PALS 2016 (Prepared by: Dean Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis and the students of Lyceum of the Philippines University)
Art. 1345. Simulation of a contract may be absolute or relative. The former takes place when the parties do not intend to be bound at all; the latter, when the parties conceal their true agreement.
Art. 1346. An absolutely simulated or fictitious contract is void. A relative simulation, when it does not prejudice a third person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to their real agreement.
In the present case, respondents admitted that the purpose of the sale was to facilitate titling and not the transfer of ownership.
SOURCE: PALS 2016 (Prepared by: Dean Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis and the students of Lyceum of the Philippines University)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment