Ureta v Ureta

-Alfonso(father) executed 4 deeds of sale in favor of his children in order to reduce

inheritance taxes
-Alfonso died. Heirs executed extra judicial partition.
-Heirs of Policronio (one of Alfonso’s children) contends that the land belongs to their
father evidence by tax dec
-Heirs of Alfonso contends that deed of sale was null and void for lack of consideration
and for being fictitious. Tenants of the land delivers fruits to Alfonso not to Policronio
RTC: sale is null and void, no consideration. Heirs of policronio failed to prove ownership
CA: deed of sale is void for being absolutely simulated
ISSUE: W/N the deed of sale is valid?
SC: No. Sale is absolutely simulated for taxation purposes. No intention to be bound. Ownership
remains to Alfonso. Policronio did not assert ownership. RPT paid by Alfonso. Produce was
given to Alfonso

Formaran v Ong
-Dr. Lorna Formaran owns a parcel of land donated by his uncle and aunt
-Formaran made it appear that she sold ½ of the land to defendant Glenda Ong (Ong
needs collateral for loan to finance her clinic)
-Ong, instead of returning the land to Formaran, filed a case for unlawful detainer
against the latter
-Formaran contends that the sale is fictitious and absolutely simulated for lack of
consideration
-Ong contends that she is the qoner by virtue of the deed of sale. Sale was registered.
-Formaran filed a case for annulment of the deed of sale
RTC: Deed of sale is null and void for being absolutely simulated and for lack of consideration
CA: Reversed RTC
ISSUE: W/N the deed of sale is between Formaran and Ong is valid?
SC: No. Deed of sale is absolutely simulated for lack of consideration. From the time of alleged
sale, Formaran remained in possession of the property. Allegedly sale was registered 24 yrs
after execution. Glenda Ong never asserted ownership nor introduced improvements.
Petitioner’s house stood on the land.

Constantino v Heirs of Constantino

Petitioner: Grandchildren of Pedro Sr. from his children Bruno and Santiago
Respondents: Great grandchildren of Pedro Sr.; grandchildren of Pedro Jr.

-Pedro Constantino Sr. owns parcel of land in Bulacan. He died.

-Respondent filed for nullification of a document entitled “Pagmamana sa labas ng
Hukuman against grandchildren wherein Petitoners misrepresented themselves as the sole
heirs of Pedro Sr.
-Petitioner asserts that the deed was valid and was made upon the mutual and
voluntary agreement between and among the descendants of Pedro Sr.
 -Petitioner contends that the earlier Extrajudicial settlement with waiver of 192sqm lot
meant that respondents waived their share to the lots covered by the “Pagmamana…”
RTC: Parties are in pari delicto. Parties cannot recover from each other. “Pagmamana..” is valid.
CA: Lot in extrajudicial settlement belongs to Pedro jr. thus it did not deprive heirs of Pedro Sr.;
it was a different lot. In pari delicto does not apply
ISSUE: W/N the pagmamana sa labas ng hukuman is valid?
SC: No. Both contracts are void and inexistent for being contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy. Both parties wanted to deprive each other of their rightful share.
In pari delicto does not apply.

CPG of Sps. Cadavedo v Lacaya

-Sps Cadavedo owned a lot and subsequently sold said lot to Sps. Ames
-Sps Cadavedo filed a case against Sps Ames for sum of Money or voiding of sale for
failing to pay purchase price
-Sps Cadavedo engaged services of Atty. Bsndal but due to health reasons was
substituted by Atty. Lacaya
-Atty. Lacaya amended the complaint to assert the nullity of sale as gross violation of
public land law. It also stated that he was hired on a contingent fee basis, that in case sps
cadavedo would win he would be paid 2000 pesos.
-RTC declared deed of sale null and void. Atty. Lacaya asked for ½ of lot as attorney’s
fees. Selected more valuable and productive half
-Sps Cadavedo was unsatisfied and entered the portion of assigned to Atty. Licaya
-Cadavedo and Atty. Licaya entered into a compromise agreement (10.5has to licaya)
-Sps. Cadavedo assailed the Compromise Agreement
RTC: contingent fee of 10.5 hectares excessive and uncosionable. 5.2has only. Contigent
agreement of 2k was novated by compromise agreement
CA: Reversed RTC.
ISSUE: W/N the oral contract was valid?
SC: No. agreement for ½ of lot is void. Written agreement prevails over oral agreement.
Agreement is champertous (1/2 lot) Lawyers cannot assume litigation expenses w/o providing
for reimbursement in exchange of continency fee. Void as it is contrary to public policy.

De Leon v De Llana
-Respondent De Lllana owns a parcel of land located at Compostela Valley which was
leased for De Leon for a period of 5 years to be used as a lottery outlet
-Gilbert De Llana contends that De Leon failed to pay rental in arrear despite repeated
demands and refused to vacate the property thus an ejectment suit was filed
-De Leon contends that contract of lease is simulated hence not binding on the parties
MCTC: dismissed ejectment suit. Contract of lease not binding as it was simulated. There was
no effort on the part of De Llana to collect rentals for at least 6 yrs. contract was a mere
formality to comply with PCSO requirement
RTC: Reversed McTC. Venue was improper
CA: Reversed RTC.
ISSUE: W/N the contract of lease was valid?
SC: No. Contract of lease is void as it is an absolutely simulated contract. No substance, parties
did not intend to be bound by the contract. De Llana did not exert effort to collect rentals
despite nonpayment for more or less 6yrs. Failure of other party to demand performance for a
considerable length of time renders contract in effective

Tolentino vs Spouses Latagan

-Property I question co-owned by Jerera Siblings
-Jerera Siblings sold land to Amado Dio who sold it back to Servillano Jerera (one of the
original co-owners)
-Servillano sold land to his daughter Maria Latagan
-Heirs of Amado Dio (petitioners) contend Deed of Sale executed by Amado in favor of
Servillano was simulated/fictitious for being a forgery hence subsequent transactions are null
and void
RTC: NBI examiner found that signature was different. Contract was void for lack of consent
since signature was forged. Maria not a buyer in good faith
CA: Reversed RTC. Forgery was not proved. Maria is a buyer in good faith
ISSUE: W/N deed of sale between Servillano and Maria was valid?
SC: Yes. Maria was an innocent purchaser for value. Nothing in the certificate of title indicate
any cloud or vice of ownership.

Tinganlan v Sps. Melliza

-Anastacio Tingalan was an owner of a free patent land which was sold to SPs. Melliza.
-Sps Melliza exercise acts of ownership on said land
-23yrs later, one Elena Tunanan filed adverse claim over the property
-Petitioner Tingalan filed an action to Quiet title and recovery of possession against sps
Melliza contending that the sale was null and void since it was executd within the 5 year
prohibitory period of the Public Land Act.
RTC: Upheld validity of sale. Transfer was not yet effected so it did no violate PLA
CA: Affirmed RTC. Case was barred by laches. 24 year delay
ISSUE: W/N the sale was valid?
SC: NO. Deed of sale was null and void from the beginning as it is contrary to law and public
policy. Void contracts are imprescriptible.

Clemente v CA
-Adela Clemente owned 3 parcel of lands and during her lifetime she allowed her
children and grandchildren to use such
-Adela simulated transfer of lots to her two grandsons Arlos and Dennis Shotwell
-Adela sold one of the land to petitioner Valentina Clemente for 250k
-Adela and Petitioner Valentina Clemente left for US. Clemente went back to PH and
registered the sale. Adela died in the US
-Clemente sought to eject Annie and Carlos Sr. (Adela’s children)
-Annie representing her siblings filed for re-conveyance of property alleging that the
sale was only intended to help petitioner to travel to the US to make it appear that she has
properties. No consideration was given for the sale
RTC: Deed of sale null and void
CA: Affirmed RTC. Deed of sale were simulated. Made w/o consideration. Adela maintained
dominion over the property. Clemente did not exercise ownership
ISSUE: W/N the deed of sale between clemente and Adela is valid?
SC: No. Null and void for lack of consent and consideration. Adela exercised dominion over the
properties. Contract was simulated.

Castillo v Galvan
-Petitioners filed a complaint of annulment of deed of absolute sale executed by Paulino
Galvan in favor of defendants Josefa Galvan and Natividad Galvan (daughters from 1st
marriage).
-plantiff aaserted that Paulino Glavan was the owner of ½ undivided share over two
parcels of land the other half owned by respondents
-Paulino died and out of delicadeza plaintiffs waited for defendants to initiate the
settlement of estate but because of inaction they started to go over the papers concerning the
properties
-Petitioners found a deed of sale whereby Paulino and Maria purportedly sold ½ of the property
to defendants
-Maria remembered signing a document upon fraudulent representation of Josefa Galvan that
said document was for the purpose of acquiring a separate tax declarations sps not knowing
that it was a deed of sale (500 pesos)
RTC: dismissed complaint. Action has prescribed. Fraud=4yrs
ISSUE: W/N the action has prescribed?
SC: No. Plaintiffs allegation is to declare the deed of sale null and void and inexistent upon the
grounds of fraud and that there was no consideration. Such action is imprescriptible. RTC
judgement reversed.

Eugenio v Perdido
-Teodoro Eugion owns a parcel of land by virtue of a homestead patent. Eugenio sold
the land to defendant Perdido for 1,300 pesos.
-Petitioners Juan and Basilia Eugenio (children of Teodoro) filed an action to recover
land, contract was a mortgage not sale
CFI: Contract was a sale. Null and void bec. executed w/n 5yr prohibitory period
CA: reversed CFI. Plaintiffs had no personality to attack the sale
ISSUE: W/N the action to annul the sale has prescribed?
SC: No. The sale was null and void from the beginning. Annulling void contracts does not
prescribe.

Paluwagan ng Bayan Savings Bank v King

-Petitioner sued Mercantile Financing Corporation (MFC) and its directors and officers
for recovery of money market placements and consequently were charged jointly and solidarily
-The parties thru their counsel entered a compromise agreement wherein defendants
were to pay 707,500.01 plus 20% interest.
 -Counsel for defendants filed a pleading entitled clarification on the ground that he was
only representing MFC and not the other defendants. Showed board resolution that he was atty
in fact of MFC only
-Private respondents (former directors and officers of MFC) filed a motion to set aside
compromise agreement contending that Atty. Aragones does not have authority to represent
them
ISSUE: W/N the Compromise agreement is binding?
SC: No. Atty. Argones has no authority to represent them. CA is null and void. Compromise
judgement is also null and void. Ruling of lower court to the motion to set aside judgment was
untenable as action to declare nullity of void judgement does not prescribe.

Rodriguez v Rodriguez

Petitioner: Concepcion Rodriguez

Respondent: heirs of husband from 2nd marriage
-Concepcion a widow entered into a second marriage
-Concepcion sold land to Concepcion (daughter from first marriage) subsequently
Concepcion sold back land to her mother and stepfather Domingo Rodriguez
-Domingo died and Concepcion and children of Domingo from 1st marriage partitioned
the properties
-Relationship between Concepcion and children of Domingo turned sour and she filed
an action to declare conveyances of fishpond null and void
-Concepcion contends that she only conveyed properties to husband because of force
and pressure and were made w/o consideration
ISSUE: W/N the contracts were null and void?
SC: No. Contracts were not simulated. Conveyances made by Concepcion and her daughter are
intended to be real and effective. There was consideration (2.5K and 3k). Consideration need
not pass at the time when the contract is entered into.

Go Chioco v Martinez
-Go Chioco lent respondents Martinez, Ortiga, and Chan 40,000 and a promissory note
was issued to return money w/n 3mos
-Respondents failed to pay, executed another PN and paid interst of 1.8K
-Respondents continued to fail to pay and instead just issue PNs and check payment of
1.8K as interest (lasted for 2yrs). By this time, respondents already paid a total of 25K
-Go Chioco wanted to collect the balance of 15K with interest. Respondents refused to
pay alleging the 18% as usurious interest
RTC: interest is null and usurious, Go Chioco not entitled to collect principal
ISSUE: W/N Go Chioco can collect principal?
SC: Yes. Only the usurious interest is confiscated. Lender had right to recover principal.

Harden v Benguet Consolidated Mining

-Benguet Consolidated Mining invested capital in favor of Balatoc Mining in exchanged
of 600K shares
 -venture proved profitable, Balatoc earned, Benguet earned
-Fred Harden another stockholder of Balatoc filed a suit against Benguet mining
contending that under the Corporation law Benguet Mining is prohibited from acquiring
interest in another company
ISSUE: W/N Harden’s suit should prosper?
SC: No.

Vasquez v Porta
-Dolores Vasquez had obtained a judgement against her husband for a maintenance of
500 a month.
-Dr Arroyo, repeatedly tried to evade the judgement by simulating sales of his
properties
-Dr arroyo mortgage land to Jaime Porta fictitiously. Foreclosure of mortgage was
instituted by Porta 3 mos after said mortgage but mortgage is for 5 yrs
ISSUE: W/N the deed of mortgage was valid?
SC: No. mortgage was fictitious, simulated and w/o consideration. Foreclosure proceedings
were a result of collusion between dr. arroyo and porta. Lands continued in possession of Dr.
Arroyo

Angel Jose Warehousing v Chelda Enterprises

Briones v Camayo