1. De Belen Vda. de Cabalu vs.

Tabu
G.R. No. 188417| September 24, 2012 | Mendoza, J
Eu | Arts. 1347, 1459
Faustina died in 1941 and she left a will giving Benjamin Laxama a parcel of land. This will was executed in
1994. Prior to its execution, the son of Benjamin, Domingo, sold the land to petitioners. Two months after
Domingo died, he purportedly sold it to the respondents. The SC ruled that both sales were null and void
because the first sale was of a future inheritance and the second sale was made after Domingo died so
Domingo did not have contractual capacity anymore.

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.
Petitioner:​ ​MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU, MELITON CABALU, SPS. ANGELA CABALU and RODOLFO TALAVERA, and PATRICIO ABUS  
Respondent​:​ ​SPS. RENATO TABU and DOLORES LAXAMANA​,​ Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tarlac City, 
Facts
1. Faustina Maslum owned a 140,211 sq/m parcel of land in Tarlac. She died in 1941 without children and
she ​left a holographic will distributing the property to her nieces and nephews. One of the heirs was
Benjamin Laxama who died in 1960. ​In 1975​, his son, Domingo Laxama, executed a Deed of Sale of
Undivided Parcel of Land disposing his 9000 sq/m share of the land to ​Laureano Cabalu
2. In 1994​, the heirs of Faustina executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Succession with Partition to
give effect to the holographic will.
a. The deed gave Domingo the 9,000 sq/m of land and he sold 4,500 sq/m of it to Eleazar
Tabamo ​(officially Domingo owns the land this time cos before, when he sold to Laureano, the will hasn’t
been executed yet)​. ​In 1996, Domingo died.
b. Two months after, he ​purportedly executed a Deed of Absolute Sale to respondent, Renato
Tabu. Subsequently, spouses Tabu and Laxama subdivided the said lot into two.
3. In 1999, the respondent with the heirs of Domingo filed an unlawful detainer action. They claimed that
the defendants were merely allowed to occupy the lot by their late father, Domingo, but, when asked to
vacate the property, they refused to do so. ​(​this unlawful detainer case was ruled in favor of respondents)
4. The petitioners filed a case for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Joint Affidavit of Nullity
of Transfer Certificate of Titles, Quieting of Title, Reconveyance, Application for Restraining Order,
Injunction and Damages against respondent spouses. The claimed that ​they were the lawful owners of
the subject property because it was sold to their father, Laureano Cabalu, by Domingo​.  
5. Respondent-spouses countered them by saying that the deed of sale from which the petitioners
anchored their right over the 9,000 sq/m property was ​null and void
a. In 1975, Domingo was not yet the owner of the property, as the same was still registered in the
name of Faustina. Domingo became the owner of the property only in 1994, by virtue of the
Deed of Extra-Judicial Succession with Partition executed by the forced heirs of Faustina.
b. In addition, Domingo was of unsound mind having been confined in a mental institution for a
time.​ ​(CA found him of sound mind during the 1975 Sale) 
6. RTC dismissed the complaint. It declared that both the sales of Domingo to Laureano Cabalu and
Renato Tabu were void. The land title of Faustina is restored, subject to partition by her lawful heirs.
7. CA modified the RTC decision. It declared that only the sale to Laureano Cabalu was void.
8. Petitioners come before the SC.
Issues:
● W/N the sale of the 9,000 sq/m of land by Domingo to Laureano Cabalu was valid? ​No, it’s not
● W/N the sale of the 4,500 sq/m of land by Domingo to Renato Tabu was valid? ​No, it’s not
Holding

On the sale to Laureano Cabalu:​ ​What Domingo sold was his future inheritance so it’s void
[See Doctrine] Domingo in 1975 could not yet validly dispose of the whole or even a portion of it because he
was not the sole heir of Benjamin, as his mother only died sometime in 1980. At the time the sale was
executed, Faustina's will was not yet probated; the object of the contract, the 9,000 sq/m property, still formed
part of the inheritance of his father from the estate of Faustina; and Domingo had a mere inchoate hereditary
right therein. Domingo became the owner of the said property only in 1994, the time of execution of the Deed
of Extrajudicial Succession with Partition by the heirs of Faustina, when the 9,000 sq/m lot was adjudicated to
him

On the sale to Renato Tabu: The sale was made after Domingo’s death so it’s void ​(there was nothing
mentioned in the facts on how this sale actually happened it just said that it was made after his death)

It was executed on August 4, 1996 more than two months after the death of Domingo. Contracting parties must
be juristic entities at the time of the consummation of the contract. To form a valid and legal agreement it is
necessary that there be a party capable of contracting and a party capable of being contracted with. ​Hence, if
any one party to a supposed contract was already dead at the time of its execution, such contract is
undoubtedly simulated and false and, therefore, null and void by reason of its having been made after
the death of the party who appears as one of the contracting parties therein. ​The death of a person
terminates contractual capacity. The contract being null and void, the sale to Renato Tabu produced no legal
effects and transmitted no rights whatsoeve​r.  

Ruling
Petition is ​partially granted. ​CA decision is modified. ​The sale to Cabalu is null and void. The sale to Tabu
is null and void. T​he title in the name of Domingo Laxama is ordered restored subject to partition by
his lawful heirs.

Relevant Provisions:
Civil Code
● Art. 1347. All things which are not outside the commerce of men, including future things, may be the
object of a contract. All rights which are not intransmissible may also be the object of contracts. ​No
contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by
law. All services which are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy may
likewise be the object of a contract. (1271a)
● Art. 1459. ​The thing must be licit and the vendor must have a right to transfer the ownership thereof at
the time it is delivered. (n)