Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Cabalu V Tabu

    Uploaded by

    Vener Angelo Margallo
    The Supreme Court ruled that two deeds of sale executed by Domingo Laxamana involving property that was part of an inheritance were void. The Court found that at the time the deeds were executed, the succession of the original owner had not been completed, so any contracts over the inheritance property were invalid under Article 1347 of the Civil Code. As Domingo only had an expected hereditary right to the property when he executed the deeds, the deeds were deemed void as they constituted contracts upon future inheritance prohibited by law.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabalu V Tabu

    Uploaded by

    Vener Angelo Margallo
    45 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that two deeds of sale executed by Domingo Laxamana involving property that was part of an inheritance were void. The Court found that at the time the deeds were executed, the succession of the original owner had not been completed, so any contracts over the inheritance property were invalid under Article 1347 of the Civil Code. As Domingo only had an expected hereditary right to the property when he executed the deeds, the deeds were deemed void as they constituted contracts upon future inheritance prohibited by law.

    Original Description:

    Digests

    Original Title

    1. Cabalu v Tabu

    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 Supreme Court ruled that two deeds of sale executed by Domingo Laxamana involving property that was part of an inheritance were void. The Court found that at the time the deeds were executed, the succession of the original owner had not been completed, so any contracts over the inheritance property were invalid under Article 1347 of the Civil Code. As Domingo only had an expected hereditary right to the property when he executed the deeds, the deeds were deemed void as they constituted contracts upon future inheritance prohibited by law.

    Copyright:

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

    Cabalu V Tabu

    Uploaded by

    Vener Angelo Margallo
    The Supreme Court ruled that two deeds of sale executed by Domingo Laxamana involving property that was part of an inheritance were void. The Court found that at the time the deeds were executed, the succession of the original owner had not been completed, so any contracts over the inheritance property were invalid under Article 1347 of the Civil Code. As Domingo only had an expected hereditary right to the property when he executed the deeds, the deeds were deemed void as they constituted contracts upon future inheritance prohibited by law.

    Copyright:

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

    CIVIL LAW REVIEW I – ATTY.

    LEGARDA

    Cabalu v Tabu AUTHOR: Margallo, Vener Angelo C.


    G.R. No. 188417, September 24, 2012 NOTES:
    TOPIC: General Provisions of Succession
    PONENTE: Mendoza, J.
    CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
    Under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases
    expressly authorized by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 1347, characterizes a contract entered into upon future inheritance
    as void. The law applies when the following requisites concur:
    (1) the succession has not yet been opened;
    (2) the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and
    (3) the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in nature.
    FACTS:

     The property subject of the controversy is a 9,000 square meter lot which was a portion of a property registered in
    the name of the late Faustina Maslum (Faustina)

     Faustina died without any children. She left a holographic will, assigning and distributing her property to her
    nephews and nieces. The said holographic will, however, was not probated.

     One of the heirs was the father of Domingo Laxamana (Domingo), Benjamin Laxamana, who died allegedly
    executed a Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land disposing of his 9,000 square meter share of the land to
    Laureano Cabalu.

     To give effect to the holographic will, the forced and legitimate heirs of Faustina executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial
    Succession with Partition. The said deed imparted 9,000 square meters of the land to Domingo.

     Domingo sold 4,500 square meters of the 9,000 square meters to his nephew, Eleazar Tabamo. Domingo passed
    away.

     Two months after his death, Domingo purportedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of respondent Renato
    Tabu (Tabu).

     Respondent the heirs of Domingo, filed an unlawful detainer action against all persons claiming rights under them
    (petitioners).

     Petitioners filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Joint Affidavit of Nullity of Transfer
    Certificate of Title.

     Petitioners contend that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Domingo in favor of Laureano Cabalu on March 5,
    1975 should have been declared valid because it enjoyed the presumption of regularity. According to them, the
    subject deed, being a public document, had in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same,
    there must be clear, convincing and more than preponderant evidence, otherwise, the document should be upheld

     Respondent spouses, in their Comment 15 and Memorandum, 16 counter that the issues raised are not questions of
    law and call for another calibration of the whole evidence already passed upon by the RTC and the CA.

    ISSUE(S):

    1] whether the Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land covering the 9,000 square meter property executed by
    CIVIL LAW REVIEW I – ATTY. LEGARDA

    Domingo in favor of Laureano Cabalu on March 5, 1975, is valid; and

    2] whether the Deed of Sale, dated October 8, 1996, covering the 4,500 square meter portion of the 9,000 square meter
    property, executed by Domingo in favor of Renato Tabu, is null and void

    HELD:

    YES TO BOTH.
    RATIO:

     Domingo was a son of Benjamin as apparent in his Marriage Contract and Benjamin was a nephew of Faustina as
    stated in the holographic will and deed of succession with partition.

     By representation, when Benjamin died in 1960, Domingo took the place of his father in succession. In the same
    vein, the holographic will of Faustina mentioned Benjamin as one of her heirs to whom Faustina imparted 9,000
    square meters of her property.

     Likewise, the signatories to the Deed of Extra-judicial Succession with Partition, heirs of Faustina, particularly
    declared Domingo as their co-heir in the succession and partition thereto.

     Under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases
    expressly authorized by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 1347, characterizes a contract entered into upon future
    inheritance as void. The law applies when the following requisites concur:
    (1) the succession has not yet been opened;
    (2) the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and
    (3) the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in nature.

     At the time the deed was executed, Faustina's will was not yet probated; the object of the contract, the 9,000 square
    meter property, still formed part of the inheritance of his father from the estate of Faustina; and Domingo had a
    mere inchoate hereditary right therein.

    DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):

    You might also like