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