Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Siguan V Lim Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Tivorshio Macabodbod
    2K views2 pages
    1. The case involved an action to rescind a deed of donation executed by Rosa Lim in favor of her children on the basis that it was fraudulent to her creditor Maria Antonia Siguan. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the action must fail because Siguan's credit did not exist at the time of the donation, which is a requisite for an action to rescind. 3. Additionally, Siguan did not prove that she exhausted all other legal means to obtain satisfaction of her claim, which is another requisite for an action to rescind.

    Original Description:

    318 SCRA 725, G.R. No. 134685 (November 19, 1999)

    Original Title

    Siguan v Lim Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The case involved an action to rescind a deed of donation executed by Rosa Lim in favor of her children on the basis that it was fraudulent to her creditor Maria Antonia Siguan. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the action must fail because Siguan's credit did not exist at the time of the donation, which is a requisite for an action to rescind. 3. Additionally, Siguan did not prove that she exhausted all other legal means to obtain satisfaction of her claim, which is another requisite for an action to rescind.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    2K views2 pages

    Siguan V Lim Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Tivorshio Macabodbod
    1. The case involved an action to rescind a deed of donation executed by Rosa Lim in favor of her children on the basis that it was fraudulent to her creditor Maria Antonia Siguan. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that the action must fail because Siguan's credit did not exist at the time of the donation, which is a requisite for an action to rescind. 3. Additionally, Siguan did not prove that she exhausted all other legal means to obtain satisfaction of her claim, which is another requisite for an action to rescind.

    Copyright:

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

    Siguan v. Lim 318 SCRA 725, G.R. No.

    134685 (November 19, 1999)

    Facts:

    1. On 25 and 26 August 1990, Rosa Lim (respondent, LIM) issued two Metrobank checks to satisfy her
    debts to Maria Antonia Siguan (petitioner, SIGUAN).
    2. Upon presentment by SIGUAN with the drawee bank, the checks were dishonoured for the reason
    account closed.
    3. Criminal case for violation of BP 22 was filed by SIGUAN against LIM.
    4. On December 29 1992, RTC convicted LIM as charged. The case is pending before this Court for
    review.
    5. On August 10, 1989, LIM executed a Deed of Donation in favour of her children, and the same was
    registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds on July 2, 1991.
    6. June 23, 193, SIGUAN filed an accion pauliana against LIM and her children, to rescind the
    questioned Deed of Donation and to declare as null and void the new transfer certificates of title.

    Issue/s:

    1. Whether or not the questioned Deed of Donation was made in fraud of petitioner and, therefore,
    rescissible.

    Ruling:

    1. No. The rescission required the existence of creditors at the time of alleged fraudulent alienation, and
    this must be proved as one of the bases of the judicial pronouncement setting aside the contract.
    Without prior existing debt, there can neither be injury nor fraud. While it is necessary that the credit
    of the plaintiff in the accion pauliana must exist prior to the fraudulent alienation, the date of the
    judgment enforcing it is immaterial.

    Since LIMs indebtedness to SIGUAN was incurred in August 1990, or a year after the execution of
    the Deed of Donation, the first requirement of accion pauliana was not met.

    Even assuming arguendo that petitioner became a creditor of LIM prior to the celebration of the
    contract of donation, still her action for rescission would not fare well because the third requisite was
    not met. It is essential that the party asking for rescission prove that he has exhausted all other legal
    means to obtain satisfaction of his claim. SIGUAN neither alleged nor proved that she did so. On his
    score, her action for rescission of the questioned deed is not maintainable even if the fraud charged
    actually did exist.

    The fourth requisite for an accion pauliana to prosper is not present either. (4) the act being impugned
    is fraudulent. It was not sufficiently established that the properties left behind by LIM were not
    sufficient to cover her debts existing before the donation was made.

    Note / Doctrine:

     Requisites of accion pauliana

    1. Plaintiff asking for rescission has a credit prior to the alienation, although demandable later.
    2. Debtor has made a subsequent contract conveying a patrimonial benefit to a third persons.
    3. Creditor has no other legal remedy to satisfy his claim, but would benefit by rescission of the
    conveyance to the person.
    4. Act being impugned is fraudulent.
    5. The third parsons who received the property conveyed, if by onerous title, has been an accomplice in
    the fraud.

     (New Civil Code) Article 1381. Contracts entered into in fraud of creditors may be rescinded only
    when the creditors cannot in any manner collect the claims due to them.
     (New Civil Code) Article 1383. The action for rescission is but a subsidiary remedy which cannot be
    instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal means to obtain reparation for
    the same.
     (New Civil Code) Article 1387(1). All contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates property by
    gratuitous title are presumed to have been entered into in fraud of creditors when donor did not
    reserve sufficient property to pay all debts contracted before the donation.
     (New Civil Code) Article 759. Donation is always presumed to be in fraud of creditors when at the
    time thereof the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay his debts prior to the donation.
     (New Civil Code) Article 1384. Rescission shall only be to the extent necessary to cover the
    damages caused.
     Only the creditor who brought the action for rescission can benefit from the rescission; those who
    are strangers to the action cannot benefit from its effects.
     Revocation is only to the extent of the plaintiff creditors unsatisfied debts; as to the excess,
    alienation is maintained.

    You might also like