119 Sumipat V Banga Montemayor

Sumipat v.
Banga
Facts:
Spouses Placida Tabo-tabo and Lauro Sumipat, who were childless, acquired
three parcels of land.
However, Lauro Sumipat sired five illegitimate children out of an extra-marital
affair with Pedra Dacola, namely: petitioners Lydia, Laurito, Alicia, Alejandro
and Lirafe, all surnamed Sumipat.
Lauro Sumipat executed a document denominated Deed of Absolute Transfer
and/or Quit-claim Over Real Properties in favor of petitioners covering the
three parcels of land. Placidas signature appeared on the document,
indicating her marital consent.
However, it appeared that at the time the document was executed, Lauro
Sumipat was already very sick and bedridden.
o Upon Lydias (one of the petitioners) request, their neighbor Benjamin
Rivera lifted the body of Lauro Sumipat and Lydia guided Lauros hand
in affixing his signature on the document which she had brought.
o The next day, Lydia returned and requested Placida, who was
unlettered, to sign on the document. She signed in haste, even without
getting an answer to her query on what it was all about.
After Lauro Sumipats death Placida and petitioners jointly administered the
properties 50% of the produce of which went to Placida.
As Placidas share in the produce of the properties dwindled until she no
longer received any and learning that the titles to the properties were already
transferred/made in favor of the petitioners, she filed a complaint for
declaration of nullity of titles, contracts, partition, recovery of ownership.
Lydia disclaims participation in the execution of the assailed document and
claims to have acquired knowledge of its existence only five days after its
execution when Lauro Sumipat gave it to her.
RTC-Dipolog ruled in favor of petitioners and declared that the entirety of the
properties, and not just Lauro Sumipats conjugal share, were validly
transferred to the defendants.
o Since the due execution of the document of which was not contested
by Placida, the properties were absolutely transferred to petitioners.
CA ruled in favour of Placida and annulled the deed insofar as it covers
Placidas conjugal share.
o Since Placida was unlettered, the petitioners, as the parties interested
in enforcing the deed, have the burden of proving that the terms
thereof were fully explained to her. This they failed to do.
o It was only Lauro Sumipat who appeared before Judge Garcia and to
whom he explained the contents of the deed.
o Judge Garcia was under the impression that the deed conveyed the
exclusive properties of Lauro Sumipat.
Issue: WoN the questioned deed by its terms or under the surrounding
circumstances has validly transferred title to the disputed properties to the
petitioners
NO
A perusal of the deed reveals that it is actually a gratuitous disposition of

property a donation although although Lauro Sumipat imposed upon the
petitioners the condition that he and his wife, Placida, shall be entitled to
one-half (1/2) of all the fruits or produce of the parcels of land for their
subsistence and support.
The deed covers three parcels of land. Being a donation of immovable
property, the requirements for validity set forth in Article 749 of the Civil
Code should have been followed.
o Title to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee
by virtue of a deed of donation until and unless it has been accepted in
a public instrument and the donor duly notified thereof.
o Where the deed of donation fails to show the acceptance, or where the
formal notice of the acceptance, made in a separate instrument, is
either not given to the donor or else not noted in the deed of donation
and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null and void.
In this case, the donees acceptance of the donation is not manifested either
in the deed itself or in a separate document. Hence, the deed as an
instrument of donation is patently void.
There is also no proof of filing of the necessary return, payment of donors
taxes on the transfer, or exemption from payment thereof.
Neither can the deed as a sale, barter or any other onerous conveyance be
effected, in the absence of valid cause or consideration and consent
competently and validly given.
While it is true that the CA found Placidas consent to have been vitiated by
mistake, her testimony actually makes out a case of total absence of consent,
not merely vitiation thereof.
Since the real issue is whether the questioned deed has validly transferred
ownership of the litigated properties, it is appropriate for the Court to inquire
into the form of the deed and the existence of valid consent thereto to
ascertain the validity or nullity of the deed.
The issue of validity or nullity is interwoven with the positions adopted by the
parties and the rulings made by the courts below. Hence, the deed shall be
struck down as it appears on its face to be a patent nullity.
Prescription
Being an absolute nullity, both as a donation and as a sale, the deed is
subject to attack at any time, in accordance with the rule in Article 1410 of
the Civil Code that an action to declare the inexistence of a void contract
does not prescribe.

119 Sumipat V Banga Montemayor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

119 Sumipat V Banga Montemayor

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

119 Sumipat V Banga Montemayor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sumipat v.

A perusal of the deed reveals that it is actually a gratuitous disposition of

You might also like