OBLICON || Case Digests 04.22.

24 1

#1 Ching v. Goyanco, Jr., G.R. No. 165879, November 10,

2006 ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN
GOYANKO SR. and CHING NULL and VOID?
FACTS:
Yes, the Court has held that the contract of sale was null and
ISSUE: A complaint for recovery of property and damages was void as it has violated Art. 1352, 1409 and 1490 of the Civil
filed by the respondents (Goyanko Jr. and his siblings) against Code.
petitioner, Maria Ching before RTC Cebu City. They prayed for
the nullification of the deed of sale and TCT and the issuance The contract of sale was contrary to moral and public policy as
of a new one in favor of their father, Goyanko. it was made by a husband in favor of a concubine after
abandoning his family and left the conjugal home where his
The respondents alleged that the signature of their father in wife and children lived and from whence they derived their
the deed of sale in favor of Ching was found and verified as support. Therefore, the sale was subversive of the stability of
forgery by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. the family, a basic social institution which public policy
cherishes and protects.
Trial court dismissed the complaint against Ching as the
signature on the question Deed of Sale is genuine as it was Moreover, Art. 1409 clearly states that contracts are void and
duly executed and signed by Joseph Goyanko, Sr. himself as inexistent from the very beginning if the cause, object, or
testified by the notary public. purposes is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy.
Furthermore, the parcel of lands sought to be recovered in
this case by the siblings against their father's common law Furthermore, the sale is contrary to law.
wife or mistress (Ching) can never be considered as the
conjugal property of their father, Goyanko Sr., and mother, Spouses are prohibited to sell and donate property to each
Epifania Dela Cruz. other subject to certain exceptions as it destroys the system
of conjugal partnership, a basic policy in civil law. Additionally,
Respondents appealed before CA. Appellate court reversed this is to prevent exercise of undue influence by one spouse
RTC's decision and declared the deed of sale and TCT as null over the other and to protect the institution of marriage, a
and void. cornerstone of family law.

It held that the subject property belongs to the conjugal As this prohibition is applicable to lawful husband and wife, all
partnership of Joseph Sr. and Epifanania Dela Cruz-Goyanko as the more to those in common law marriages, otherwise "the
it was acquired during the existence of a valid marriage. condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be
Moreover, even if Goyanko and Epifania have been estranged better than those in legal union."
for years, there has never been a judicial decree declaring
their marriage's and conjugal partnership's dissolution. Thus, as the conveyance was in favor of Goyanko Sr.'s
common-law-wife, it was null and void.
Furthermore, even if the subject property was not conjugal,
the sale is invalid as Goyanko Sr. and Ching have been living WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
together as common-law husband and wife.
Costs against petitioner.
Art. 1352 provides: "Contracts without cause, or with
unlawful cause, produce no effect whatsoever. The cause is SO ORDERED.
unlawful if itis contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy." #2 Basic Books Phil, Inc., v. Lopez, G.R. No. L-20753, February
28, 1966
Therefore, the contract of sale in favor of Ching is null and
void for being contrary to morals and public policy as it FACTS:
undermines the stability of the family, a basic social
institution which public policy vigilantly protects. Before the Municipal Court of Manila, a complaint was filed
by Basic Books (Phil.), Inc. against Emilio Lopez and Isidro
Additionally, spouses are prohibited from selling property to Kintanar to recover the sum of P1,548.70 plus attorney's fees
each other as it destroys the system of conjugal partnership, a for the defendants' failure to account for the received
basic policy in civil law. This is likewise applicable to common- consignment of various books for sale.
law relationships otherwise, "the condition of those who
incurred guilt would turn out to be better than those in legal Lopez and Kintanar entered into an agreement with Basic
union." Book wherein they bound themselves, jointly and severally, to
pay their obligation to the latter. (P1,548.70)
Hence, this petition.
 OBLICON || Case Digests 04.22.24 2

The agreement includes the ff: been dropped or dismissed, which only means that the civil
liability of the parties created under the agreement in
Lopez will pay to avoid criminal liability as a criminal case for question had not affected the criminal case.
estafa was filed against him by Basic Books pending before CFI
Manila. Premises considered, the decision appealed from is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
Meanwhile, Kintanar binds himself jointly and severally liable
with Lopez for the full payment of P1,548.70. #3 Heirs of Juan San Andres V. Vicente Rodriguez, G.R. No.
135634 May 31, 2000
Lopez confessed judgment, but Kintanar denied liability under
the contract as he contends that is void as it was executed for FACTS: Ramon San Andres, as judicial administrator of the
the purpose of restraining Lopez' prosecution for estafa. estate of Juan San Andres, filed an action against respondent,
Vicente Rodriguez, as it was found that the latter had
Municipal Court ordered Lopez to pay Basic Books but enlarged the 345qm lot it purchased by 509 sqm.
absolved Kintanar of the liability as the agreement was signed
based on illegal consideration. However, Rodriguez alleged that the 509 sqm lot was also sold
to him by Juan San Andres, treating the 345 sqm lot and 509
Basic Books appealed to CFI. CFI then rendered a decision that sqm as one whole parcel with total area of 845 sqm.
Kintanar is also liable for the amount of the claim based on
the letter by Kintanar to Basic Books proposing payment of In his Re-amended Answer, he attached a receipt signed by
Lopez' account by installment to secure payment of obligation the late Juan San Andres that the latter received P500 as
binding themselves jointly and severally liable to petitioner. advance payment.

Kintanar appealed to CA. However, it certified the case to this Furthermore, a letter of Ramon San Andres demanding for
Court. the payment of the balance of the purchase price was also
attached.
Hence, this present issue.
Respondent deposited in court the balance of the purchase
ISSUE: Whether or not the agreement executed by Basic price amounting to P7,035.00 for the 509 sqm lot.
Books with Lopez and Kintanar is based on an illegal
consideration? While the proceedings were pending, judicial administrator
Ramon San Andres died and was substituted by his son,
RULING: No. The Court has held that Kintanar's obligation Ricardo San Andres. On the other hand, respondent Vicente
under the agreement is not based on an illegal consideration Rodriguez died and was substituted by his heirs.
a a careful reading of the agreement will show that while the
2nd paragraph speak of Lopez' obligation and avoidance of Trial court rendered judgment in favor or San Andres as there
the criminal case as reason for entering into the agreement, was no contract of sale due to lack of a valid object as there
there was a note under that Kintanar bound himself to pay, was no sufficient indication on the receipt to identify the
jointly, and severally with Emilio Lopez the latter's accounts. property subject of the sale. Therefore, there's a need to
Therefore, Kintanar's assumption of a joint and several execute a new contract.
liability cannot be interpreted or based upon the illegal
consideration of "stifling a criminal prosecution against Lopez. However, CA reversed trial court's decision as it held that the
object of the contract was determinable, and that there was a
Article 1351 of the New Civil Code states that "the particular conditional sale with the balance of the purchase price
motives of the parties in entering into a contract are different payable within 5 years from its execution and deed of sale.
from the cause thereof."
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.
"Cause" is "the essential reason which moves the contracting
parties to enter into it." ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in holding the receipt signed
by Juan San Andres is a contract to sell despite its lacking one
In other words, the cause is the immediate, direct and of the essential elements of a contract, namely, object certain
proximate reason which justifies the creation of an obligation and sufficiently described?
through the will of the contracting parties. Applying this
definition, the cause of the agreement would be the existing RULING: No. The CA did not err in holding the receipt as a
account of Lopez with the appellee. And for the appellant it contract to sell.
was mere liberality of gratuitousness on his part that moved
him to oblige himself severally with Lopez. It is noteworthy While petitioner contends that the "property subject of the
that so far it has not been shown that the criminal case, had sale was not described with sufficient certainty that there is a
necessity of another agreement between the parties to finally
 OBLICON || Case Digests 04.22.24 3

ascertain the identity; size and purchase price of the property

which is the object of the alleged sale," citing Art. 1349 and Respondent spouses Apacionado appealed to CA
1460 of the Civil Code, the court has held that there is no
need of a new contract as the 509sqm lot is capable of being CA reversed trial court's decision.
determined since it was referred to adjoin the "previously
paid lot" on three sides thereof. It held the ff:
1) Cenido's filiation by Bonifacio's brother, Gavino, did not
All the essential elements of a contract are present. comply witht he requirements of the Civil Code and Family
Code;
As the CA correctly observed: 2) Deed of sale over the property between Bonifacio and Sps.
Apacionado was valid; and
The receipt profoundly speaks of a meeting of the mind 3) Cenido's failure to object to the presentation of the deed
between San Andres and Rodriguez for the sale of the before the trial court was a waiver of the defense of the
property adjoining the 345 square meter portion previously Statute of Frauds.
sold to Rodriguez on its three (3) sides excepting the frontage.
Hence, this petition for review.
The price is certain, which is P15.00 per sqm. Evidently, this is
a perfected contract of sale on a deferred payment of the
purchase price. ISSUE: Whether or not the "Pagpapatunay" is a valid contract
of sale?
All the pre-requisite elements for a valid purchase transaction
are present. Sale does not require any formal document for its RULING: Yes, the court has held that "Pagpapatunay" is valid
existence and validity.
Sps. Apacionado claim their ownership over the subject
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is property based on the document "Pagpapatunay" executed
AFFIRMED with the modification that respondent is ORDERED by Bonifacio Aparato in favor of the respondent spouses.
to reimburse petitioners for the expenses of the survey.
The Court has ruled that the "Pagpapatunay" contains all
SO ORDERED. essential requisites of a contract - consent of the contracting
parties, object certain which is the subject matter of the
#4 Renato Cenido v. Sps. Apacionado and Herminia Sta. Ana, contract and cause of the obligation which is established.
G.R. No. 132474 November 19, 1999
Consent was voluntarily given by Bonifacio. There was no
FACTS: clear evidence that the contract was vitiated by mistake,
violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.
Before RTC Rizal, a complaint for "Declaration of Ownership,
Nullity and Damages" was filed by respondent spouses The object of the "Pagpapatunay" is the house and lot. The
Apacionado and Herminia Sta. Ana against petitioner Renato cause and consideration is P10K for the services rendered by
Cenido as they allege that they are the owners of a 123sqm the respondent spouses to Aparato.
lot with a house standing on when the latter was able to
cause the issuance in his name of tax dec over subject While it is a private document, this does not detract its
property through fraudulent and unauthorized means. validity as Art. 1356 provides: "Contracts shall be obligatory,
in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided
Though the ejectment case was dismissed by MTC, the tax all the essential requisites for their validity are present.
dec was not cancelled and still subsisted. However, when the law requires that a contract be in some
form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a
Cenido answered that he is the illegitimate son and sole contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is
surviving heir of Bonifacio Aparato, the deceased owner of absolute and indispensable. In such cases, the right of the
the subject property. parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised."

Furthermore, his ownership over the house and lot was Law may prescribe a certain form for validity, enforceability,
confirmed by MTC Binangonan due to the compromise or greater of efficacy of the contract.
agreement partitioning the deceased's estate among his heirs.
Art. 1358 states:
Trial court rendered judgment and upheld Cenido's ownership
over the property as Bonifacio's brother, Gavino, recognized The following must appear in a public document:
the compromise judgment of MTC. Moreover, the deed of (1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the
sale was neither notarized nor signed by Bonifacio. Thus, it creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real
was intrinsically defective. rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of
 OBLICON || Case Digests 04.22.24 4

an interest therein are governed by Articles 1403, No. 2 and for Recovery of Ownership and Possession and Declaration of
1405; the Deed of Confirmation as Null and Void with Damages
(2) The cession, repudiation or renunciation of hereditary against spouses Platon and Matilden Demaymay before RTC
rights or of those of the conjugal partnership of gains; Catalingan, Masbate.
(3) The power to administer property, or any other power
which has for its object an act appearing or which should Petitioners found out that Tax Declaration under Anselma's
appear in a public document, or should prejudice a third name was cancelled and a new one was issued under
person; Matilde's name by virtue of a Deed of Confirmation of Sale
(4) The cession of actions or rights proceeding from an act allegedly executed by petitioner Alma.
appearing in a public document.
All other contracts where the amount involved exceeds five RTC ordered the transfer of the case to Municipal Circuit Trial
hundred pesos must appear in writing, even a private one. Court (MCTC) in Placer, Masbate as the assessed value of the
But sales of goods, chattels or things in action are governed subject lot was less than P20K.
by Articles 1403, No. 2 and 1405.
MCTC, however, dismissed it as the cause of action was
The requirement of a public document in Article 1358 is not annulment of the Deed of Confirmation of Sale which RTC has
for the validity of the instrument but for its efficacy. Although jurisdiction.
a conveyance of land is not made in a public document, its
validity is not affected. The case was appealed to RTC and reversed MCTC's judgment
and remanded the case to the latter.
Article 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts
or contracts in a public instrument to validate the act or MCTC then rendered a Decision declaring petitioners, heirs of
contract but to insure its efficacy, so that after the existence Anselma, owners of the subject property.
of said contract has been admitted, the party bound may be
compelled to execute the proper document. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed but was denied. An
appeal was filed before RTC.
Under Article 1357, the law requires a document or other
special form, as in the acts and contracts enumerated in the RTC did not decied the case but remanded it to MCTC for
following article [Article 1358], the contracting parties may further hearing and reception of evidence from the parties.
compel each other to observe that form, once the contract
has been perfected. This right may be exercised MCTC conducted further proceedings
simultaneously with the action upon the contract.
The spouses daughter, Nida, testitied that she was present
The private conveyance of the house and lot is therefore valid when the initial payment of P1,010.00 was given to Anselma
between Bonifacio Aparato and respondent spouses. The but no contract of sale was executed as the latter was about
question of whether the "Pagpapatunay" is sufficient to to give birth at that time.
transfer and convey title to the land for purposes of original
registration or the issuance of a real estate tax declaration in Alma and Anselma's uncle, Emilio Gudayawan, executed a
respondent spouses' names, as prayed for by respondent receipt for the initial amoutn of P1,010.00 worded as:"Resibo
spouses, is another matter altogether. For greater efficacy of Sa Kwarta Nga Gibayad Sa Yuta Sa Kantidad Na Php1,460.00
the contract, convenience of the parties and to bind third nga bili sa Yuta" as Anselma and her husband died before any
persons, respondent spouses have the right to compel the contract of sale was executed.
vendor or his heirs to execute the necessary document to
properly convey the property. Subsequently, Deed of Confirmation of Sale was allegedly
executed by Alma upon full payment of the purchase price,
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is denied and the Decision hence the property was taxdeclared under Matilde's name.
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CVNo.
41011 are affirmed. Tax Declaration No. 02-6368 in the name However, MCTC rendered decision in favor of petitioners.
of petitioner Renato Cenido is declared null and void.
Spouses Demaymay appealed with the RTC but was dismissed
No costs. for lack of merit. A petition for Review was then filed before
CA.
#5 Heirs of Godines v. Demaymay, G.R. No. 230573, June 28,
2021 CA granted spouses Demaymay's petition and ordered heirs of
Anselma to executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
FACTS: respondent spouses.

Herein petitioners, heirs of Anselma Yuson Godines (Anselma) Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Marlon, Francisco, Roque, Rosa and Alma, filed a Complaint
 OBLICON || Case Digests 04.22.24 5

ISSUE: Whether or not CA erred in ruling that Anselma's heirs

are bound by the oral contract of sale allegedly executed in SO ORDERED.
favor of Sps. Demaymay?

RULING: No. Ca did not err in ruling that Anselma's heirs are
bound by the oral contract of sale executed in favor of
spouses Demaymay.

The sale between Anselma and spouses Demaymay is valid.

Art. 1356 states that any form of contract shall be obligatory

as long as all essential requisites are present, subject to
certain exceptions as required by law for it to be valid or
enforceable.

Oral contracts of sale of real property does not necessarily

mean they are void or invalid as it is a well-settled rule in Art.
1358 that failure to observe the prescribed proper form does
not render acts or contracts invalid. In other words, although
a conveyance of land is not made in a public document, its
validity is not affected.

Art. 1358 does not require the accomplishment of the acts or

contracts in a public instrument in order to validate the act or
contract but only to insure its efficacy. Failure to observe the
prescribed form of contracts does not invalidate the
transaction.

Furthermore, Statute of Frauds, Art. 1403 (2) does not declare

the contracts invalid. It is still valid between the parties.
However, no action can be enforced unless the prescribed
requirement is complied with.

The form prescribe by law is for evidentiary purposes, non-

compliance does not make contract void or voidable, it is
unenforceable by any action.

Court agrees with CA that Statute of Frauds is inapplicable in

the present as it is only applicable to executory contracts, not
to those either fully or partially executed.

The sale between Anselma and the spouses has already been
consummated upon receipt of the latter's payment of
P1,01000. Moreover, the sale was executed totally upon
Alma's receipts of the P450.00 balance.

Considering that the oral sale between Anselma and the

spouses Demaymay is valid (and is actually enforceable by
virtue of the partial, if not total consummation of the
contract), petitioners, being the heirs of Anselma, are legally
bound by the said oral sale. Having already been validly sold
and transferred to the spouses Demaymay, we agree with the
CA's conclusion that the subject piece of land described in Tax
Declaration No. 7194 no longer formed part of Anselma's
estate that petitioners could have inherited.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The August 16, 2016

Decision and March 8, 2017 Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133147 are AFFIRMED.