Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 251 views

    Bacalso V Aca-Ac

    Uploaded by

    Robert Rosales
    The Bacus siblings owned land that they inherited. In 1987, they executed a deed selling a portion of the land to their cousin Timoteo for P8,000. However, Timoteo failed to pay any of the purchase price. Timoteo then sued to invalidate the deed, claiming ownership. The courts ruled that the deed was void from the beginning due to lack of consideration, as Timoteo never paid the agreed upon price. A contract without consideration, like failing to pay an agreed upon price, results in no valid contract existing. Therefore, the deed transferring the land to Timoteo was deemed null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    Bacalso V Aca-Ac

    Uploaded by

    Robert Rosales
    251 views2 pages
    The Bacus siblings owned land that they inherited. In 1987, they executed a deed selling a portion of the land to their cousin Timoteo for P8,000. However, Timoteo failed to pay any of the purchase price. Timoteo then sued to invalidate the deed, claiming ownership. The courts ruled that the deed was void from the beginning due to lack of consideration, as Timoteo never paid the agreed upon price. A contract without consideration, like failing to pay an agreed upon price, results in no valid contract existing. Therefore, the deed transferring the land to Timoteo was deemed null and void.

    Original Description:

    contract

    Original Title

    6. Bacalso v Aca-Ac

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Bacus siblings owned land that they inherited. In 1987, they executed a deed selling a portion of the land to their cousin Timoteo for P8,000. However, Timoteo failed to pay any of the purchase price. Timoteo then sued to invalidate the deed, claiming ownership. The courts ruled that the deed was void from the beginning due to lack of consideration, as Timoteo never paid the agreed upon price. A contract without consideration, like failing to pay an agreed upon price, results in no valid contract existing. Therefore, the deed transferring the land to Timoteo was deemed null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    Bacalso V Aca-Ac

    Uploaded by

    Robert Rosales
    The Bacus siblings owned land that they inherited. In 1987, they executed a deed selling a portion of the land to their cousin Timoteo for P8,000. However, Timoteo failed to pay any of the purchase price. Timoteo then sued to invalidate the deed, claiming ownership. The courts ruled that the deed was void from the beginning due to lack of consideration, as Timoteo never paid the agreed upon price. A contract without consideration, like failing to pay an agreed upon price, results in no valid contract existing. Therefore, the deed transferring the land to Timoteo was deemed null and void.

    Copyright:

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

    GR No.

    172919, January 13, 2016


    Timoteo and Diodada Bacalso (Petitioners) v Georgia Aca-ac, Eutiquia Aguila, Julian Bacus and
    Evelyn Sychangco (Respondents)
    Third Division
    Ponente: Reyes, J.

    Nature of Action: Complaint for declaration of nullity of contract and certificates of title, re-conveyance
    and damages.

    FACTS:
    The Bacus siblings were the registered owners of a parcel of land described as Lot No. 1809-G-2
    located in San Roque, Talisay, Cebu. The Bacus siblings inherited the said property from their mother
    Matea Bacalso. On October 15, 1987, the Bacus siblings executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying a
    portion of Lot No. 1809-G-2 with an area of 271 sq m, described as Lot No. 1809-G-2-C, in favor of their
    cousin, Timoteo for and in consideration of the amount of P8,000.00. On March 4, 1988, however,
    Timoteo, together with his sisters Lucena and Victoria and some of his cousins filed a complaint for
    declaration of nullity of documents, certificates of title, re-conveyance of real property and damages
    against the Bacus siblings and four other persons before the RTC of Cebu City. They claimed that they are
    co-owners of the three-fourths portion of Lot No. 1809-G (which Lot No. 1809-G-2-C was originally part
    of) as Matea had paid for the said property for and in behalf of her brother Alejandro (father of petitioner
    Timoteo) and sisters Perpetua and Liberata, all surnamed Bacalso. The RTC found that Matea was the
    sole owner of Lot No. 1809-G and affirmed the validity of the conveyances of portions of Lot No. 1809-G
    made by her children. The same was affirmed by the CA and became final and executory.
    Undaunted, petitioners filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of contract and certificates of
    title, re-conveyance and damages against the Bacus siblings, this time claiming ownership over Lot No.
    1809-G-2-C by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 15, 1987. They claimed, however, that
    the Bacus siblings reneged on their promise to cause the issuance of a new TCT in the name of the
    petitioners. The Bacus siblings denied the allegations of the petitioners and claimed that the alleged sale
    of Lot No. 1809-G-2-C in favor of the petitioners did not push through because the petitioners failed to
    pay the purchase price thereof. The RTC issued a Decision declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
    October 15, 1987 void for want of consideration after finding that the petitioners failed to pay the price of
    the subject property. The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale is void for want of consideration.

    RULING:
    The Deed of Absolute Sale is void for want of consideration.
    Contrary to the petitioners' claim, this is not merely a case of failure to pay the purchase price
    which can only amount to a breach of obligation with rescission as the proper remedy. As correctly
    observed by the RTC, the disputed sale produces no effect and is considered void ab initio for failure to or
    want of consideration since the petitioner failed to pay the consideration stipulated in the Deed of
    Absolute Sale.
    It is evident from all the foregoing circumstances that there was a failure to or want of
    consideration of the supposed sale of the land in question to the [petitioners] on October 15, 1987. So, the
    said sale could not be given effect. Article 1352 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines is explicit in
    providing that 'contracts without cause produce no effect whatsoever'. If there is no cause, the contract is
    void. x x x There being no price paid, there is no cause or consideration; hence, the contract is void as a
    sale. x x x Consequently, in the case at bench, the plaintiffs have not become absolute owners of Lot
    1809-G-2-C of Psd-07-022093 by virtue of the Deed of Sale thereof which was executed on October 15,
    1987 by the [Bacus siblings] in their favor. It is clear from the factual findings of the RTC that the Deed
    of Absolute Sale entirely lacked consideration and, consequently, void and without effect. No portion of
    the P8,000.00 consideration indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale was ever paid by the petitioners.
    It must be stressed that the present case is not merely a case of failure to pay the purchase price,
    as [the petitioners] claim, which can only amount to a breach of obligation with rescission as the proper
    remedy. What we have here is a purported contract that lacks a cause - one of the three essential requisites
    of a valid contract. Failure to pay the consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former
    results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing valid
    contract while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract. Consequently, we rule that the October
    15, 1987 Deed of Sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration.

    You might also like