Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 426 views

    Ting Ho Vs Teng Gui GR NO. 130115 JULY 16, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Micah Clark-Malinao
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land and improvements between siblings. The father of the siblings was disqualified from owning land in the Philippines as a Chinese citizen. The court found that although the deeds of sale of improvements by the father were simulated, the transactions were intended as donations based on the Civil Code. Therefore, the son was the rightful owner of the land and improvements based on documents transferring ownership to him. The sale was not void as the transactions were effectively donations rather than simulated sales.

    Copyright:

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

    Ting Ho Vs Teng Gui GR NO. 130115 JULY 16, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Micah Clark-Malinao
    426 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land and improvements between siblings. The father of the siblings was disqualified from owning land in the Philippines as a Chinese citizen. The court found that although the deeds of sale of improvements by the father were simulated, the transactions were intended as donations based on the Civil Code. Therefore, the son was the rightful owner of the land and improvements based on documents transferring ownership to him. The sale was not void as the transactions were effectively donations rather than simulated sales.

    Original Description:

    Ting Ho vs Gui

    Original Title

    TING HO V GUI

    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 case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land and improvements between siblings. The father of the siblings was disqualified from owning land in the Philippines as a Chinese citizen. The court found that although the deeds of sale of improvements by the father were simulated, the transactions were intended as donations based on the Civil Code. Therefore, the son was the rightful owner of the land and improvements based on documents transferring ownership to him. The sale was not void as the transactions were effectively donations rather than simulated sales.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    426 views2 pages

    Ting Ho Vs Teng Gui GR NO. 130115 JULY 16, 2008

    Uploaded by

    Micah Clark-Malinao
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land and improvements between siblings. The father of the siblings was disqualified from owning land in the Philippines as a Chinese citizen. The court found that although the deeds of sale of improvements by the father were simulated, the transactions were intended as donations based on the Civil Code. Therefore, the son was the rightful owner of the land and improvements based on documents transferring ownership to him. The sale was not void as the transactions were effectively donations rather than simulated sales.

    Copyright:

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

    TING HO VS TENG GUI

    GR NO. 130115 JULY 16, 2008

    FACTS:

    Felix Ting Ho, Jr., Merla Ting Ho Braden, Juana Ting Ho and Lydia Ting Ho Belenzo
    against their brother, respondent Vicente Teng Gui. The controversy revolves around a parcel
    of land, and the improvements which should form part of the estate of their deceased father,
    Felix Ting Ho, and should be partitioned equally among each of the siblings. In the present
    case, the father of petitioners and respondent was a Chinese citizen; therefore, he was
    disqualified from acquiring and owning real property in the Philippines.

    In his answer, the respondent countered that on October 11, 1958, Felix Ting Ho sold
    the commercial and residential buildings to his sister-in-law, Victoria Cabasal, and the bakery to
    his brother-in-law, Gregorio Fontela. He alleged that he acquired said properties from the
    respective buyers on October 28, 1961 and has since then been in possession of subject
    properties in the concept of an owner; and that on January 24, 1978, Original Certificate of Title
    No. P-1064 covering the subject lot was issued to him pursuant to a miscellaneous sales patent
    granted to him on January 3, 1978.[6]

    RTC Ruling: It considered the Affidavit of Transfer, Relinquishment and Renouncement of


    Rights and Interests over the land as a donation which was accepted by the donee, the herein
    respondent. With respect to the properties in the lot, the trial court held that although the sales
    were simulated, pursuant to Article 1471 of the New Civil Code it can be assumed that the
    intention of Felix Ting Ho in such transaction was to give and donate such properties to the
    respondent. As a result, it awarded the entire conjugal share of Felix Ting Ho in the subject lot
    and properties to the respondent and divided only the conjugal share of his wife among the
    siblings.

    CA RULING: The CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. The appellate court held
    that the deceased Felix Ting Ho was never the owner and never claimed ownership of the
    subject lot since he is disqualified under Philippine laws from owning public lands, and that
    respondent Vicente Teng Gui was the rightful owner over said lot by virtue of Miscellaneous
    Sales Patent No. 7457 issued in his favor

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the sale was void?

    RULING:

    No, the sale was not void.

    Although the Deeds of Sale executed by Felix Ting Ho regarding the improvements in favor of
    Victoria Cabasal and Gregorio Fontela and the subsequent transfer of the same by Gregorio
    Fontela and Victoria Cabasal to the defendant are all simulated, yet, pursuant to Article 1471 of
    the New Civil Code it can be assumed that the intention of Felix Ting Ho in such transaction was
    to give and donate the improvements to his eldest son the defendant Vicente Teng Gui

    Article 1471 of the Civil Code has provided that if the price is simulated, the sale is void, but the
    act may be shown to have been in reality a donation, or some other act or contract.

    The sale in this case, was however valid because the sale was in fact a donation. The
    law requires positive proof of the simulation of the price of the sale. But since the finding was
    based on a mere assumption, the price has not been proven to be a simulation.

    You might also like