Sps. Viovicente v. Sps. Viovicente, G.R. No. 219074 , 28 July 2020 , Lazaro-Javier, J.

Sps. Viovicente v. Sps. Viovicente

G.R. No. 219074

28 July 2020

Lazaro-Javier, J.:

First Division

 

Nature of the Action: This is a petition assailing the Court of Appeals’ disposition reversing the trial court’s decision and dismissing the petitioners’ complaint for the reconveyance of property and nullity of sale against Respondent Spouses Danilo and Alice Viovicente.

Facts:

Teodorico Viovicente claimed that he was the registered owner of a property covered by a TCT. He acquired it through a GSIS real estate loan. However, Danilo forced him and his wife Dominga to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale. Out of fear, they signed the deed even without receiving any payment as consideration. Later, they’ve learned that Danilo and his wife were able to transfer the property to their names and were issued TCT through a fictitious deed. Thus, the petitioners filed the complaint for reconveyance of property, nullity if the supposed sale of property, and cancellation of the TCT in the names of Danilo and his wife. The trial court then ruled in favor of the petitioners. On appeal, the Court if Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling.

The petitioners moved for reconsideration but was denied. Hence, the present petition.

Issue:

Whether there was a valid conveyance of property in favor of the Respondents?

Ruling:

There was no valid conveyance of the property in favor of Respondents.

At any rate, there was never any valid conveyance of the property in favor of Respondents. Whether respondents base their claim of ownership on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 14, 1995 or Deed of Sale dated June24, 1993 is immaterial. Both were void. The first was spurious or forged; the second did not have any consideration in exchange for the supposed sale of the lot.

Article 1458 of the Civil Code defines contract of sale, thus:

Article 1458: By the contract of sale one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent. (Emphasis supplied) 

The elements of a valid contract of sale are: (1) consent or meeting of the minds; (2) determinate subject matter; and (3) price certain in money or its equivalent. Absent any of the elements, the sale is fictitious or otherwise void. Specifically, Article 1471 of the Civil Code decrees that if the price in a contract is simulated, the sale is void. 

Here, petitioners denied ever receiving a single centavo from the respondents by their testimonies during trial. The trial court found these testimonies credible.

Spouses Lequin v. Spouses Vizconde decreed that where the deed of sale state that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration.

Similary, in Labagala v. Santiago, the Court declared void for want of consideration the sale of the property.

Admittedly, Lagabala did not pay any centavo for the property, which makes the sale void pursuant to Article 1471 of the Civil Code.

All told, the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the complaint.