View
229
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/13/2019 De Belen Vda vs Cabalu
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/de-belen-vda-vs-cabalu 1/2
DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU, MELITON CABALU, SPS. ANGELA CABALU
and RODOLFO TALAVERA, and PATRICIO ABUS, Petitioners, vs. SPS.
RENATO DOLORES TABU and LAXAMANA, 681 SCRA 625, September 24,
2012
Articles Applicable: Art. 1347
Doctrine: ARTICLE 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of men,including future things, may be the object of a contract. All rights which are not
intransmissible may also be the object of contracts.
No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly
authorized by law.
All services which are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy may likewise be the object of a contract. (1271a)
FACTS: Property in question is 9000 sq m, a portion of property of Faustina Maslum with a total
area of 140,211 sq m. Faustina died without children. She left a holographic will
assigning her property to her nephews and nieces. This will was not however probated Benjamin Laxamana, father of Domingo Laxamana, was an heir. He died in
1960 in 1975 Domingo allegedly executed a Deed of Sale of Undivided parcel of land(9,000 sq m)in favour of Laureano Cabalu. In 1994, the forced and legitimate heirs of
Faustina executed a deed of extra judicial succession with partition to give effect to thewill. The deed imparted the 9,000 to Domingo. Domingo sold half of his land to
Eleazar Tabamo and half was registered under his name under TCT 281353 1996
domingo died 2 months after, domingo purportedly executed a deed of absolute sale ofTCT 281353 to Renato Tabu, who together with his wife, Dolores Laxamana divided the
lit into two The Laxamanas, Heirs of Domingo, filed an unlawful detainer action against
Cabalu and all claiming rights under them. They claim that the defendants were merely
allowed to occupy the subject lot by their late father but refused to vacate The case wasdecided in favour of Domingo’s heirs 2002, Cabalus (petitioners) filed a case for
declaration of nullity of deed of absolute sale, joint affidavit of nullity of transfert of
TCTs. Quieting of title, reconveyance, application for restraining order, injunction anddamages against respondent spouses petitioners claimed that they were the lawful
owners of the subject property because it was sold to their father, Laureano Cabalu, by
Domingo in 1975 Respondents: void as in 1975, Domingo was not yet owner and only
became such in 1994. Domingo was also of unsound mind then. RTC: dismissed thecomplaint. Deed of absolute sale null and void for lack of capacity to sell of domingo
Likewise, sale to Tabu is ineffective as Domingo was dead then Both appealed to CA.
according to petitioner, Domingo was a co-owner of property left by Benjamin and couldtherefore dispose of the portion he owned. According to respondents, the sale was
spurious and simulated as the signature, PTR and document number of the notary public
were different from the notarized docs. Also there was no consent as Domingo was of
unsound mind then CA: modified: sale of Domingo to Cabalu void. Although he was of
8/13/2019 De Belen Vda vs Cabalu
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/de-belen-vda-vs-cabalu 2/2
sound mind, the deed was simulated. Sale to Tabu valid. ISSUE: 1. W/N sale to Cabalu was valid
2. W/N sale to tabu was valid
1. Petitioners invoke the presumption of validity of the deed. However, such cannot prevail over the facts proven. Deed in favor of Cabalu was simulated
Even on the assumption that the 1995 deed was not simulated, the sale still cannot bevalid as at that time Domingo was not yet the owner of the property. Even if his father
died in 1960, he was not the only heir as his mother died in 1980 Besides, under Article
1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except
in cases expressly authorized by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 1347, characterizes acontract entered into upon future inheritance as void. The law applies when the following
requisites concur: (1) the succession has not yet been opened; (2) the object of the
contract forms part of the inheritance; and (3) the promissor has, with respect to the
object, an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in nature
Domingo became the owner of the said property only on August 1, 1994, the time ofexecution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Partition by the heirs of Faustina,
when the 9,000 square meter lot was adjudicated to him. The CA, therefore, did not err
in declaring the March 5, 1975 Deed of Sale null and void.
2. Regarding the deed of sale covering the remaining 4,500 square meters of the subject property executed in favor of Renato Tabu, it is evidently null and void. The document
itself, the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, readily shows that it was
executed on August 4, 1996 more than two months after the death of
Domingo. Contracting parties must be juristic entities at the time of the consummationof the contract. Stated otherwise, to form a valid and legal agreement it is necessary that
there be a party capable of contracting and a party capable of being contracted
with. HELD: partially granted Deed in favour of Cabalu is void Deed in favour ofTabu is void
Recommended