FIRST DIVISION
SPOUSES
BERNARDO
BUENAVENTURA AND CONSOLACION JOAQUIN,SPOUSES JUANITO
EDRA and NORA JOAQUIN, SPOUSES RUFINO VALDOZ
AND EMMA JOAQUIN
AND NATIVIDAD JOAQUIN,
Petitioners, |
G.R.
No.
126376
November 20, 2003
-versus-
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
COURT
OF APPEALS,
SPOUSES LEONARDO JOAQUIN AND FELICIANA LANDRITO,SPOUSES FIDEL
JOAQUIN
and CONCHITA BERNARDO, SPOUSES TOMAS JOAQUINAND SOLEDAD ALCORAN,
SPOUSES ARTEMIO JOAQUIN and SOCORRO ANGELES,SPOUSES ALEXANDER
MENDOZA and CLARITA JOAQUIN, SPOUSES TELESFORO CARREONAND FELICITAS
JOAQUIN,
SPOUSES DANILO VALDOZ AND FE JOAQUIN,AND SPOUSES GAVINO
JOAQUIN AND LEA ASIS,
Respondents. |
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO,
J.:
The Case
This is a Petition for
Review on Certiorari[1]
to annul the Decision[2]
dated 26 June 1996 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 41996. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision[3]
dated 18 February 1993 rendered by Branch 65 of the Regional Trial
Court
of Makati ("trial court") in Civil Case No. 89-5174. The trial court
dismissed
the case after it found that the parties executed the Deeds of Sale for
valid consideration and that the plaintiffs did not have a cause of
action
against the defendants. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Facts
The Court of Appeals
summarized the facts of the case as follows:
Defendant
spouses
Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito are the parents of plaintiffs
Consolacion,
Nora, Emma and Natividad as well as of defendants Fidel, Tomas,
Artemio,
Clarita, Felicitas, Fe, and Gavino, all surnamed JOAQUIN. The married
Joaquin
children are joined in this action by their respective spouses.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sought to be
declared
null and void ab initio, are certain deeds of sale of real property
executed
by defendant parents Leonardo Joaquin and Feliciana Landrito in favor
of
their co-defendant children and the corresponding certificates of title
issued in their names, to wit:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Deed
of
Absolute Sale covering Lot 168-C-7 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256395
executed on 11 July 1978, in favor of defendant Felicitas Joaquin, for
a consideration of P6,000.00 (Exh. "C"), pursuant to which TCT No.
36113/T-172
was issued in her name (Exh. "C-1");chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Deed of
Absolute
Sale covering Lot 168-I-3 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256394 executed
on 7 June 1979, in favor of defendant Clarita Joaquin, for a
consideration
of P12,000.00 (Exh. "D"), pursuant to which TCT No. S-109772 was issued
in her name (Exh. "D-1");chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. Deed of
Absolute
Sale covering Lot 168-I-1 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256394 executed
on 12 May 1988, in favor of defendant spouses Fidel Joaquin and
Conchita
Bernardo, for a consideration of P54,300.00 (Exh. "E"), pursuant to
which
TCT No. 155329 was issued to them (Exh. "E-1");chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4. Deed of
Absolute
Sale covering Lot 168-I-2 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256394 executed
on 12 May 1988, in favor of defendant spouses Artemio Joaquin and
Socorro
Angeles, for a consideration of P[54,3]00.00 (Exh. "F"), pursuant to
which
TCT No. 155330 was issued to them (Exh. "F-1"); andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. Absolute Sale
of
Real Property covering Lot 168-C-4 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256395
executed on 9 September 1988, in favor of Tomas Joaquin, for a
consideration
of P20,000.00 (Exh. "G"), pursuant to which TCT No. 157203 was issued
in
her name (Exh. "G-1").chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6. Deed of
Absolute
Sale covering Lot 168-C-1 of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-256395 executed
on 7 October 1988, in favor of Gavino Joaquin, for a consideration of
P25,000.00
(Exh. "K"), pursuant to which TCT No. 157779 was issued in his name
(Exh.
"K-1").]
In seeking the
declaration
of nullity of the aforesaid deeds of sale and certificates of title,
plaintiffs,
in their complaint, aver: x x
x
x x
x
x x x
The deeds of sale,
Annexes
"C," "D," "E," "F," and "G," and "K"] are simulated as they are, are
NULL
AND VOID AB INITIO because —
a)
Firstly,
there was no actual valid consideration for the deeds of
sale
x x x over the properties in litis;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) Secondly,
assuming
that there was consideration in the sums reflected in the questioned
deeds,
the properties are more than three-fold times more valuable than the
measly
sums appearing therein;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) Thirdly, the
deeds
of sale do not reflect and express the true intent of the parties
(vendors
and vendees); and
d) Fourthly, the
purported
sale of the properties in litis was the result of a deliberate
conspiracy
designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the compulsory heirs
(plaintiffs
herein) of their legitime.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
Necessarily, and as
an
inevitable consequence, Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
36113/T-172,
S-109772, 155329, 155330, 157203 [and 157779] issued by the Registrar
of
Deeds over the properties in litis x x
x
are NULL AND VOID AB INITIO.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Defendants, on the
other
hand aver (1) that plaintiffs do not have a cause of action against
them
as well as the requisite standing and interest to assail their titles
over
the properties in litis; (2) that the sales were with sufficient
considerations
and made by defendants parents voluntarily, in good faith, and with
full
knowledge of the consequences of their deeds of sale; and (3) that the
certificates of title were issued with sufficient factual and legal
basis.[4]
(Emphasis
in the original.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Ruling
of
the Trial Court
Before the trial, the
trial court ordered the dismissal of the case against defendant spouses
Gavino Joaquin and Lea Asis.[5]
Instead of filing an Answer with their co-defendants, Gavino Joaquin
and
Lea Asis filed a Motion to Dismiss.[6]
In granting the dismissal to Gavino Joaquin and Lea Asis, the trial
court
noted that "compulsory heirs have the right to a legitime but such
right
is contingent since said right commences only from the moment of death
of the decedent pursuant to Article 777 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines."[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After trial, the trial
court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The
trial court stated:
In the
first
place, the testimony of the defendants, particularly that of
the
x x x father will show that the Deeds of Sale
were
all executed for valuable consideration. This assertion must prevail
over
the negative allegation of plaintiffs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
And then there is
the
argument that plaintiffs do not have a valid cause of action against
defendants
since there can be no legitime to speak of prior to the death of their
parents. The court finds this contention tenable. In determining the
legitime,
the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be
considered
(Art. 908 of the New Civil Code). Hence, the legitime of a compulsory
heir
is computed as of the time of the death of the decedent. Plaintiffs
therefore
cannot claim an impairment of their legitime while their parents live.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All the foregoing
considered,
this case is DISMISSED.
In order to
preserve
whatever is left of the ties that should bind families together, the
counterclaim
is likewise DISMISSED.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.[8] The Ruling
of
the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appellate court ruled:
To the mind
of the Court, appellants are skirting the real and decisive issue in
this
case, which is, whether x x x they
have a cause of action against appellees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon this point,
there
is no question that plaintiffs-appellants, like their defendant
brothers
and sisters, are compulsory heirs of defendant spouses, Leonardo
Joaquin
and Feliciana Landrito, who are their parents. However, their right to
the properties of their defendant parents, as compulsory heirs, is
merely
inchoate and vests only upon the latter's death. While still alive,
defendant
parents are free to dispose of their properties, provided that such
dispositions
are not made in fraud of creditors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Plaintiffs-appellants
are
definitely not parties to the deeds of sale in question. Neither do
they
claim to be creditors of their defendant parents. Consequently, they
cannot
be considered as real parties in interest to assail the validity of
said
deeds either for gross inadequacy or lack of consideration or for
failure
to express the true intent of the parties. In point is the ruling of
the
Supreme Court in Velarde, et al. vs. Paez, et al., 101 SCRA 376, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
plaintiffs
are not parties to the alleged deed of sale and are not principally or
subsidiarily bound thereby; hence, they have no legal capacity to
challenge
their validity.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Plaintiffs-appellants
anchor their action on the supposed impairment of their legitime by the
dispositions made by their defendant parents in favor of their
defendant
brothers and sisters. But, as correctly held by the court a quo, "the
legitime
of a compulsory heir is computed as of the time of the death of the
decedent.
Plaintiffs therefore cannot claim an impairment of their legitime while
their parents live."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With this posture
taken
by the Court, consideration of the errors assigned by
plaintiffs-appellants
is inconsequential.
WHEREFORE, the
decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED, with costs against
plaintiffs-appellants.
SO ORDERED.[9]
Hence, the instant
petition. Issues
Petitioners assign the
following as errors of the Court of Appeals:
1. THE
COURT
OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CONVEYANCE IN QUESTION HAD NO
VALID CONSIDERATION.
2. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS A CONSIDERATION,
THE SAME IS GROSSLY INADEQUATE.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE DEEDS OF SALE DO NOT EXPRESS THE TRUE
INTENT
OF THE PARTIES.
4. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE CONVEYANCE WAS PART AND PARCEL OF A
CONSPIRACY
AIMED AT UNJUSTLY DEPRIVING THE REST OF THE CHILDREN OF THE SPOUSES
LEONARDO
JOAQUIN AND FELICIANA LANDRITO OF THEIR INTEREST OVER THE SUBJECT
PROPERTIES.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5. THE COURT OF
APPEALS
ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS HAVE A GOOD, SUFFICIENT AND VALID
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Ruling
of
the Court
We find the petition
without merit.cralaw:red
We will discuss petitioners'
legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale before
discussing the issues on the purported lack of consideration and gross
inadequacy of the prices of the Deeds of Sale.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Whether
Petitioners
have a legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale
Petitioners' Complaint
betrays their motive for filing this case. In their Complaint,
petitioners
asserted that the "purported sale of the properties in litis, was the
result
of a deliberate conspiracy designed to unjustly deprive the rest of the
compulsory heirs (plaintiffs herein) of their legitime." Petitioners'
strategy
was to have the Deeds of Sale declared void so that ownership of the
lots
would eventually revert to their respondent parents. If their parents
die
still owning the lots, petitioners and their respondent siblings will
then
co-own their parents' estate by hereditary succession.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is evident from the
records that petitioners are interested in the properties subject of
the
Deeds of Sale, but they have failed to show any legal right to the
properties.
The trial and appellate courts should have dismissed the action for
this
reason alone. An action must be prosecuted in the name of the real
party-in-interest.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
question
as to "real party-in-interest" is whether he is "the party who would be
benefited or injured by the judgment, or the 'party entitled to the
avails
of the suit.'"chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
In actions for the
annulment
of contracts, such as this action, the real parties are those who are
parties
to the agreement or are bound either principally or subsidiarily or are
prejudiced in their rights with respect to one of the contracting
parties
and can show the detriment which would positively result to them from
the
contract even though they did not intervene in it (Ibañez v.
Hongkong
& Shanghai Bank, 22 Phil. 572 [1912]) x x x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
These are parties
with
"a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
expectancy
or future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential interest
x
x x. The phrase 'present substantial interest' more concretely is
meant such interest of a party in the subject matter of the action as
will
entitle him, under the substantive law, to recover if the evidence is
sufficient,
or that he has the legal title to demand and the defendant will be
protected
in a payment to or recovery by him."[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Petitioners do not have
any legal interest over the properties subject of the Deeds of Sale. As
the appellate court stated, 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.
In their overzealousness to safeguard their future legitime,
petitioners
forget that theoretically, the sale of the lots to their siblings does
not affect the value of their parents' estate. While the sale of the
lots
reduced the estate, cash of equivalent value replaced the lots taken
from
the estate.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Whether the Deeds
of Sale are void for lack of consideration
Petitioners assert that
their respondent siblings did not actually pay the prices stated in the
Deeds of Sale to their respondent father. Thus, petitioners ask the
court
to declare the Deeds of Sale void.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A contract of sale is
not a real contract, but a consensual contract. As a consensual
contract,
a contract of sale becomes a binding and valid contract upon the
meeting
of the minds as to price. If there is a meeting of the minds of the
parties
as to the price, the contract of sale is valid, despite the manner of
payment,
or even the breach of that manner of payment. If the real price is not
stated in the contract, then the contract of sale is valid but subject
to reformation. If there is no meeting of the minds of the parties as
to
the price, because the price stipulated in the contract is simulated,
then
the contract is void.[14]
Article 1471 of the Civil Code states that if the price in a contract
of
sale is simulated, the sale is void.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is not the act of
payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale.
Payment
of the price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract.
Payment
of the price goes into the performance 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.[15]
Petitioners failed to
show that the prices in the Deeds of Sale were absolutely simulated. To
prove simulation, petitioners presented Emma Joaquin Valdoz's testimony
stating that their father, respondent Leonardo Joaquin, told her that
he
would transfer a lot to her through a deed of sale without need for her
payment of the purchase price.[16]
The trial court did not find the allegation of absolute simulation of
price
credible. Petitioners' failure to prove absolute simulation of price is
magnified by their lack of knowledge of their respondent siblings'
financial
capacity to buy the questioned lots.[17]
On the other hand, the Deeds of Sale which petitioners presented as
evidence
plainly showed the cost of each lot sold. Not only did respondents'
minds
meet as to the purchase price, but the real price was also stated in
the
Deeds of Sale. As of the filing of the complaint, respondent siblings
have
also fully paid the price to their respondent father.[18]
Whether the Deeds
of Sale are void for gross inadequacy of price
Petitioners ask that
assuming that there is consideration, the same is grossly inadequate as
to invalidate the Deeds of Sale.cralaw:red
Articles 1355 of the
Civil
Code states:
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. (Emphasis
supplied.)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Article 1470 of the Civil
Code further provides:
Art. 1470.
Gross inadequacy of price does not affect a contract of sale, except as
may indicate a defect in the consent, or that the parties really
intended
a donation or some other act or contract. (Emphasis supplied.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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. As we stated in Vales v. Villa:[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Courts
cannot
follow one every step of his life and extricate him from bad bargains,
protect him from unwise investments, relieve him from one-sided
contracts,
or annul the effects of foolish acts. Courts cannot constitute
themselves
guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent. Courts operate
not
because one person has been defeated or overcome by another, but
because
he has been defeated or overcome illegally. Men may do foolish things,
make ridiculous contracts, use miserable judgment, and lose money by
them
— indeed, all they have in the world; but not for that alone can the
law
intervene and restore. There must be, in addition, a violation of the
law,
the commission of what the law knows as an actionable wrong, before the
courts are authorized to lay hold of the situation and remedy it. (Emphasis
in the original.) chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, the factual
findings
of the appellate court are conclusive on the parties and carry greater
weight when they coincide with the factual findings of the trial court.
This Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there has
been a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid
of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse
of
discretion.[20]
In the instant case, the trial court found that the lots were sold for
a valid consideration, and that the defendant children actually paid
the
purchase price stipulated in their respective Deeds of Sale. Actual
payment
of the purchase price by the buyer to the seller is a factual finding
that
is now conclusive upon us. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM
the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Ynares-Santiago and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Artemio G. Tuquero, with Associate Justices
Cancio C. Garcia and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., concurring.
[3]
Penned by Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 29–31.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Records, pp. 189, 204.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Ibid., pp. 170–175.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Ibid., p. 189.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Ibid., pp. 355–356.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo, pp. 32–33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ibid., pp. 16–17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Article 1078 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states: "Where there
are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before its
partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of
debts
of the deceased."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Section 2, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Kilosbayan v. Morato, 316 Phil. 652 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
See Ladanga, et al. v. CA, et al., 216 Phil. 332 (1984). CESAR L.
VILLANUEVA,
PHILIPPINE LAW ON SALES 54 (1998).
[15]
Rido Montecillo v. Ignacia Reynes and Spouses Redemptor and Elisa
Abucay,
G.R. No. 138018, 26 July 2002.
[16]
TSN, 17 May 1991, pp. 497–498.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
See Embrado v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51457, 27 June 1994, 233 SCRA
335; TSN, 17 May 1991, 497–498 (Emma Joaquin Valdoz); TSN, 22 May 1991,
pp. 11–12, 20–21 (Nora Joaquin Edra).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
TSN, 14 June 1991, p. 19 (Leonardo Joaquin); TSN, 30 October 1991, p. 6
(Fidel Joaquin); TSN, 27 November 1991, p. 10 (Felicitas Joaquin
Carreon);
TSN, 7 January 1992, pp. 5–6 (Artemio Joaquin); TSN, 31 January 1992,
p.
12 (Clarity Joaquin Mendoza); TSN, 11 March 1992, pp. 16–17 (Tomas
Joaquin).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
35 Phil. 769 (1916).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138842, 18 October 2000, 343
SCRA
637. |