Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 234 views

    Sps Buenaventura Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the validity of deeds of sale of real property from parents to their children. The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the defendants, finding the deeds of sale to be valid. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, holding that: 1) There was a meeting of the minds between the parties regarding price, making the contracts valid despite manner or breach of payment; 2) Petitioners failed to prove fraud, mistake, undue influence or gross inadequacy of price to invalidate the contracts under the Civil Code; 3) As compulsory heirs, petitioners' rights do not vest until their parents' death, and they cannot claim impairment of their legitime share while their

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sps Buenaventura Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    234 views1 page
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the validity of deeds of sale of real property from parents to their children. The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the defendants, finding the deeds of sale to be valid. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, holding that: 1) There was a meeting of the minds between the parties regarding price, making the contracts valid despite manner or breach of payment; 2) Petitioners failed to prove fraud, mistake, undue influence or gross inadequacy of price to invalidate the contracts under the Civil Code; 3) As compulsory heirs, petitioners' rights do not vest until their parents' death, and they cannot claim impairment of their legitime share while their

    Original Description:

    SUCCESSION

    Original Title

    2. Sps Buenaventura vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the validity of deeds of sale of real property from parents to their children. The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the defendants, finding the deeds of sale to be valid. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, holding that: 1) There was a meeting of the minds between the parties regarding price, making the contracts valid despite manner or breach of payment; 2) Petitioners failed to prove fraud, mistake, undue influence or gross inadequacy of price to invalidate the contracts under the Civil Code; 3) As compulsory heirs, petitioners' rights do not vest until their parents' death, and they cannot claim impairment of their legitime share while their

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    234 views1 page

    Sps Buenaventura Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the validity of deeds of sale of real property from parents to their children. The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the defendants, finding the deeds of sale to be valid. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, holding that: 1) There was a meeting of the minds between the parties regarding price, making the contracts valid despite manner or breach of payment; 2) Petitioners failed to prove fraud, mistake, undue influence or gross inadequacy of price to invalidate the contracts under the Civil Code; 3) As compulsory heirs, petitioners' rights do not vest until their parents' death, and they cannot claim impairment of their legitime share while their

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Spouses Buenaventura vs. CA [G.R. No. 126376.

    November 20, 2003]

    Facts: 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. The petitioners contend that there was no actual valid consideration and that assuming that
    there was consideration in the sums reflected the properties are more than three-fold times more valuable than the small sums appearing therein.
    The RTC ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed the case. RTCs ruling was affirmed by CA. Hence the appeal.
    Issue:Whether or not there was a valid consideration in the deeds of sale
    Held: 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.
    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.
    Article 1470 of the Civil Code further provides: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.
    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.
    The Ruling of the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto by SC
    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 xxx they have a cause of action against
    appellees.
    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 latters death. While still alive, defendant parents are free to dispose of their properties, provided
    that such dispositions are not made in fraud of creditors.
    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:
    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.
    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.
    With this posture taken by the Court, consideration of the errors assigned by plaintiffs-appellants is inconsequential.

    You might also like