Mate and Ong

Mate vs.
CA Facts: On October 6, 1986, Josefina Josie Rey and private respondent Tan went to the residence of petitioner in Tacloban City. Josie solicited his help to stave her off her prosecution by respondent for violation of B. P. 22. Josie asked petitioner to cede to respondent his 3 lots. Josie explained to him that he was in no danger of losing his property as they will be redeemed by her own funds. After a long discussion, petitioner agreed to execute a fictitious deed of sale with right to repurchase after 6 months. Josie gave petitioner 2 post-dated checks to be used in redeeming the property. However, the checks were both dishonoured. Realizing that he was swindled, he sent a telegram to Josie, and looked for her in Manila, but she was nowhere to be found. Petitioner filed a criminal case against Josie for violation of B. P. 22, but the case was archived since Josie could not be located. Petitioner filed a case for annulment of contract with damages against Josie and respondent. Josie was declared in default and the case proceeded against respondent. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the sale.
Issue: Whether the sale was null and void for want of consideration
Held: It is plain that consideration existed at the time of the execution of the deed of sale with right of repurchase. It is not only appellant's kindness to Josefina, being his cousin, but also his receipt of P420,000.00 from her which impelled him to execute such contract. Furthermore, while petitioner did not receive the P1.4 Million purchase prices from respondent Tan, he had in his possession a postdated check of Josie Rey in an equivalent amount precisely to repurchase the two lots on or before the sixth month. Unfortunately, the two checks issued by Josie Rey were worthless. Both were dishonored upon presentment by petitioner with the drawee banks. However, there is absolutely no basis for petitioner to file a complaint against private respondent Tan and Josie Rey to annul the pacto de retro sale on the ground of lack of consideration, invoking his failure to encash the two checks. Petitioner's cause of action was to file criminal actions against Josie Rey under B.P. 22, which he did. The filing of the criminal cases was a tacit admission by petitioner that there was a consideration of the pacto de retro sale.
Ong v. Ong Facts: On February 25, 1976, Imelda Ong, for and in consideration of P1.00 and other valuable considerations, executed a quitclaim over a parcel of land in Makati in favor of Sandra Maruzzo, then a minor. On November 19, 1980, Imelda revoked the quitclaim and donated the property to her son Rex. On June 20, 1983, Sandra, through her guardial ad litem Alfredo Ong,
filed an action to recover the land and to declare the donation to Rex null and void. In their responsive pleading, petitioners claimed that the quitclaim is equivalent to a donation which requires acceptance by the donee, and since Sandra was a minor, there was no valid acceptance. The trial court ruled that the quitclaim is equivalent to a sale. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed the decision. Issue: Whether the quitclaim is equivalent to a deed of sale or to a deed of donation Held: The execution of a deed purporting to convey ownership of a realty is in itself prima facie evidence of the existence of a valuable consideration, the party alleging lack of consideration has the burden of proving such allegation. Even granting that the Quitclaim deed in question is a donation, Article 741 of the Civil Code provides that the requirement of the acceptance of the donation in favor of minor by parents of legal representatives applies only to onerous and conditional donations where the donation may have to assume certain charges or burdens. Donation to an incapacitated donee does not need the acceptance by the lawful representative if said donation does not contain any condition. In simple and pure donation, the formal acceptance is not important for the donor requires no right to be protected and the donee neither undertakes to do anything nor assumes any obligation. The Quitclaim now in question does not impose any condition.

Mate and Ong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mate and Ong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mate and Ong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mate vs.

You might also like