Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Concepcion Vs Sta. Ana

    Uploaded by

    Maricris Mariano Villegas
    77 views2 pages
    This case involved an action by Monico Concepcion to annul the sale of three parcels of land by his late sister Perpetua Concepcion to Paciencia Sta. Ana. Monico alleged the sale was fraudulent. The Supreme Court held that Perpetua did not transmit any right to annul the sale contract to Monico. As Perpetua's non-heir, Monico could not institute an action to annul or rescind the contract between Perpetua and Paciencia. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Paciencia, with costs to Monico.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Concepcion vs Sta. Ana.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved an action by Monico Concepcion to annul the sale of three parcels of land by his late sister Perpetua Concepcion to Paciencia Sta. Ana. Monico alleged the sale was fraudulent. The Supreme Court held that Perpetua did not transmit any right to annul the sale contract to Monico. As Perpetua's non-heir, Monico could not institute an action to annul or rescind the contract between Perpetua and Paciencia. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Paciencia, with costs to Monico.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views2 pages

    Concepcion Vs Sta. Ana

    Uploaded by

    Maricris Mariano Villegas
    This case involved an action by Monico Concepcion to annul the sale of three parcels of land by his late sister Perpetua Concepcion to Paciencia Sta. Ana. Monico alleged the sale was fraudulent. The Supreme Court held that Perpetua did not transmit any right to annul the sale contract to Monico. As Perpetua's non-heir, Monico could not institute an action to annul or rescind the contract between Perpetua and Paciencia. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment in favor of Paciencia, with costs to Monico.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Concepcion vs. Sta. Ana (87 Phil.

    787)
    G.R. No. L-2277 December 29, 1950
    MONICOCONCEPCION, plaintiff-appellant,

    vs.

    PACIENCIA STA. ANA, defendant-appellee.


    Yap and Garcia for appellant.
    Tomas Yumol for appellee.
    FERIA, J.:

    FACTS
    An action was instituted by Monico Concepcion vs. Paciencia Sta. Ana to annul the sale
    made by the late Perpetua Concepcion, sister of the plaintiff, of three parcels of land
    with the improvements thereon to the defendant. The complaint alleges that Perpetua
    Concepcion, in connivance with the defendant and with intent to defraud the plaintiff,
    sold and conveyed three parcels of land for a false and fictitious consideration to the
    defendant, who secured transfer certificates of title of said lands issued under her
    name; and that the defendant has been in possession of the properties sold since the
    death of Perpetua Concepcion, thereby causing damages to the plaintiff in the amount
    of not less than two hundred (P200) pesos.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not Perpetua Concepcion has transmitted to the plaintiff any right arising
    from the contract under consideration in order that he can bring an action to annul the
    sale voluntarily made by her to the defendant with a false consideration.

    HELD
    In support of his contention that the contract of sale under consideration being a
    fictitious contract or contract with a false consideration is null per se or non-existent,
    plaintiff quotes Manresa’s comment on article 1274 to 1277, Vol. 8, p. 623, which says:
    “Recognizing this analogy, it was held by the Supreme Court of Spain that a fictitious
    contract, or contract entered into with false consideration does not confer any right or
    produce any legal effect, citing the judgments of the Supreme Court of Spain of October
    31, 1865, of March 21, 1884, and of November 23, 1877.” Appellant’s conclusion is not
    correct. By stating that contracts with false consideration confer no right and produce no
    legal effect, Manresa does not mean to say that they are null and void per se or non-
    existent as contradistinguished from annullable, for the effects of both non-existent and
    annullable contracts that have been annulled are the same: they confer no right and
    produce no legal effect. What Manresa says on page 700 of the same volume,
    commenting on article 1301, is the following: “The expression of a false cause or
    consideration in the contract does not make it non-existent, and it shall only be a ground
    for an action for nullity as provided by article 1276 and confirmed by article 1301 of the
    Civil Code. There are some who consider this somewhat confused under the Code; for
    us it is very clear, for the code repeatedly provides that the effect of a false
    consideration is limited to making the contract voidable, and we have already pointed
    out that in this particular, our Civil Code has deviated deliberately from the French
    Code, which includes indistinctly in one and the same provision contracts without
    consideration and contracts in which the consideration is illicit or false.”
    We are of the opinion and so hold, that the late Perpetua Concepcion has not
    transmitted to the plaintiff any right arising from the contract of conveyance or sale of
    her lands to the defendant, and therefore the plaintiff cannot file an action to annul such
    contract as representative of the deceased.
    Therefore, as the plaintiff in the present case, not being a forced heir of the late
    Perpetua Concepcion, cannot institute an action to annul under article 1300 or to
    rescind under article 1291 (3) of the Civil Code the contract under consideration entered
    into by the deceased with the defendant.
    In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed with costs against
    the appellant. So ordered.

    You might also like