Case Digest: De Belen Vda. De Cabalu vs. Tabu, G.R. No. 188417. September 24, 2012

                                          Art. 774, 776 | Succession, Future Inheritance

Provision:

Art. 774. Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law.

Art. 776. The inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.

Art. 1347. No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law.

Principle:

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.

Ponente:

Mendoza, J.

Facts:

Faustina Maslum owned a parcel of land.

In 1941, she died without any children but left a holographic will distributing her property to nephews and nieces. However, the will was not probated.

In 1960, one of Faustina's heirs, Benjamin Laxamana, died.

He had two heirs: his wife and his son, Domingo Laxamana.

In 1975, Domingo Laxamana allegedly sold 9,000 sqm of Faustina's land to Laureano Cabalu.

In 1994, a Deed Extra-Judicial Succession with Partition was executed to give effect to the holographic will. Domingo Laxamana was given the 9,000 sqm.

Domingo sold part to Eleazar Tabamo in 1995.

In 1996, Domingo died. Two months after his death, he supposedly sold 4,500 sqm to Renato Tabu, leading to subdivided titles.

In 1999, respondent Tabu filed a case for unlawful detainer against occupants Cabalu. The latter claimed ownership via the 1975 sale.

RTC:.

The RTC ruled against the 1975 sale and the 1996 sale posthumously executed by Domingo.

The 1975 Deed of Sale was spurious and simulated as the signature, PTR and the document number of the Notary Public were different from the notarized documents.

CA:

The CA affirmed the RTC with some modifications, recognizing Domingo's inheritance from Faustina.

Nature:

Petition for Review on Certiorari (under Rule 45).

 

Issues:

1. WoN the Deed of Sale of Undivided Parcel of Land covering the 9,000 square meter property executed by Domingo in favor of Laureano Cabalu on March 5, 1975, is valid (NO)

2. WoN the Deed of Sale, dated October 8, 1996, covering the 4,500 square meter portion of the 9,000 square meter property, executed by Domingo in favor of Renato Tabu, is null and void. (YES)

Held:

Petition partially granted.

1. Since there are discrepancies in the signature of the notary public, his PTR and the document number on the lower-most portion of the document, as well as the said deed of sale being found only after the plaintiffs-appellants were ejected by the defendants-appellants; that they were allegedly not aware that the said property was bought by their father, and that they never questioned the other half of the property not occupied by them, it is apparent that the sale dated March 5, 1975 had the earmarks of a simulated deed written all over it. The lower court did not err in pronouncing that it be declared null and void. The RTC and later the CA had ruled that the sale, dated March 5, 1975, had the earmarks of a simulated deed, hence, the presumption was already rebutted. Verily and as aptly noted by the respondent spouses, such presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the facts proven and already established in the records of this case.

Even on the assumption that the March 5, 1975 deed was not simulated, still the sale cannot be deemed valid because, at that time, Domingo was not yet the owner of the property. There is no dispute that the original and registered owner of the subject property was Faustina, who during her lifetime had executed a will. In the said will, the name of Benjamin, father of Domingo, appeared as one of the heirs. 

Thus, and as correctly found by the RTC, even if Benjamin died sometime in 1960, Domingo in 1975 could not yet validly dispose of the whole or even a portion thereof for the reason that he was not the sole heir of Benjamin, as his mother only died sometime in 1980. In this case, at the time the deed was executed, Faustinas will was not yet probated; the object of the contract, the 9,000 square meter 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 on August 1, 1994, the time of execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Partition by the heirs of Faustina, when the 9,000 square meter lot was adjudicated to him.

2. Regarding the deed of sale covering the remaining 4,500 square meters of the subject property executed in favor of Renato Tabu, it is evidently null and void. The document itself, the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, readily shows that 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. Stated otherwise, 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 whatsoever. 

Decision:

WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The decretal portion of the June 16, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby MODIFIED to read as follows:

1. The Deed of Absolute Sale, dated March 5, 1975, executed by Domingo Laxamana in favor of Laureano Cabalu, is hereby declared as null and void.

2. The Deed of Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, executed by Domingo Laxamana in favor of Renato Tabu, and TCT No. 286484 as well as the derivative titles TCT Nos. 291338 and 291339, both registered in the name of Renato Tabu, married to Dolores Laxamana, are hereby declared null and void and cancelled.

3. TCT No. 281353 in the name of Domingo Laxamana is hereby ordered restored subject to the partition by his lawful heirs.