[64] ONG v ONG
G.R. No. L-67888 | October 8, 1985 | Relova, J.
TOPIC: False Consideration
SUMMARY: Petitioner Ong executed a Deed of Quitclaim which was basically a sale over a
piece of land in favor of a child Sandra Maruzzo for 1 peso. She then revoked that Deed of
Quitclaim so that she could donate that piece of land to her son. Respondent Ong, who was
Sandra’s guardian, instituted a suit for recovery of property by virtue of the Deed of
Quitclaim. The RTC and the Appellate Court ruled in favor of Respondent Ong saying that
the Quitclaim was a valid Sale. SC agreed saying that there is a presumption in favor of an
existing consideration even if the written consideration is sketchy.
DOCTRINE: Assuming that said consideration of P1.00 is suspicious, it does not warrant the
conclusion that the sales were null and void ab initio. Indeed, bad faith and inadequacy of
the monetary consideration do not render a conveyance inexistent, for the assignor's
liberality may be su cient cause for a valid contract (Article 1350, Civil Code), whereas fraud
or bad faith may render either rescissible or voidable, although valid until annulled, a
contract concerning an object certain entered into with a cause and with the consent of the
contracting parties.
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS:
NCC, Art. 1354. Although the cause is not stated in the contract, it is presumed that it exists
and is lawful, unless the debtor proves the contrary.
Art. 1350. In onerous contracts the cause is understood to be, for each contracting party,
the prestation or promise of a thing or service by the other; in remuneratory ones, the service
or benefit which is remunerated; and in contracts of pure beneficence, the mere liberality of
the benefactor.
FACTS:
● PETITIONER Imelda Ong, in consideration of 1 peso and other valuable
considerations, executed in favor of private respondent Sandra Maruzzo, a minor,
a Deed of Quitclaim1 over a parcel of land (½ of a whole property).
● Imelda Ong, revoked the Deed of Quitclaim and donated the whole property to her
son, Rex Ong Jimenez
● RESPONDENT Alfredo Ong, the guardian of Sandra Maruzzo filed with the RTC a
motion for the recovery of ownership/possession and nullification of the Deed of
Donation to Rex Ong Jimenez.
1
A document that allows the transfer of a claim, be it an interest, right or title that the
maker of the document may have in a property. The person granting the transfer may not
have the absolute claim to the title. (Online Black’s Law Dictionary)
RULING OF THE LOWER COURTS:
● The RTC ruled in favor of RESPONDENT Alfredo Ong, saying that there is a valid
conveyance by virtue of the Deed of Quitclaim which is essentially a SALE.
● The Appellate Court affirmed.
ARGUMENTS
1. The petitioner contends that: the 1 peso consideration is not a consideration at
all to sustain the ruling that the Deed of Quitclaim is equivalent to a sale.
2. The petitioner contends that: the Quitclaim Deed is null and void because it is
equivalent to a Deed of Donation, acceptance of which by the donee is required.
Sandra Maruzzo, being a minor, cannot have validly accepted the donation
because of her limited capacity.
ISSUES AND HOLDING
1. Is the Deed of Quitclaim actually a valid sale? YES
2. Is the Deed of Quitclaim actually a valid donation? ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT
IT IS NOT A SALE --- YES.
RATIO
1. The cause or consideration is not the 1 peso alone but also the other valuable
considerations (these are unstated and presumed, keep reading).
a. Art 1354 of the Civil Code provides a legal presumption that there is a
sufficient cause or consideration supporting a contract even if such
cause is not stated.
b. The execution of a deed purporting to convey ownership of a realty is
in itself prima facie evidence of the existence of a valuable
consideration.
c. To overcome the presumption, there must be a showing of
preponderance of evidence in a proper action.
d. HERE, there is no preponderance of evidence established because the
presumption cannot be overcome by a simple assertion of lack of
consideration especially when there is a consideration written on the
contract.
2. Kapunan v. Casilan and CA provides that the element of consent is only required
when it is an onerous donation. It is not required for a pure donation. HERE, the
Quitclaim does not impose any condition to the donee, thus, it is not an onerous
donation.
JUDGEMENT RENDERED FOR RESPONDENT
NOTES:
There was a reference to Section 5 Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which is similar in content
to NCC Art. 1354, but I can’t find this provision in the current Rules of Court.