You are on page 1of 2

P

B
B
a
T
ra
a
n
h
o
g
g
n
e
p
tu
t
e
a
tla
rs
s
rm
t
e
a
e
ie
n
te
ts
t.
s
.f
a
a
o
e
lr
lrf
.e
.s
c

BAGNAS V CA (1989)
Bagnas et al wants to recover possession of a land allegedly sold by Mateum to respondents.
Hilario Mateum of Kawit, Cavite, died on March 11, 1964, single, without ascendants or descendants,
and survived only by collateral relatives, of whom petitioners (Bagnas et al) herein, his first cousins,
were the nearest. Mateum left no will. 10 parcels of his are now being questioned.
The respondents (Retonil et al), also Matem's collateral relatives but farther in degree registered with
the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite 2 deeds of sale purportedly executed by Mateum in
their favor covering 10 parcels of land. Both deeds were in Tagalog & and each recited the
reconsideration of the sale to be P1, services rendered and to be rendered for Mateum's benefit.
Assessed value of the 10 parcels of land : 10,500pesos.
Petitioner contentions:
deeds of sale to respondents are fictitious, fraudulent or falsified, or, alternatively, as donations
void for want of acceptance embodied in a public instrument.
Respondent defense:
-Petitioners cannot collaterally attack the sale as they are mere collateral relatives of Hilario Mateum.
They had no right to impugn the latters disposition of his properties by means of the questioned
conveyances.
-No evidence of fraud tainting said transfers had been presented.
-Acceptance of a donation in a public instrument not required.
TC & CA: In favor of respondents. Petitioners have no standing to attack the the conveyance.
Insufficient evidence to prove fraud.
SC: TRANSFER IS VOID. NO VALID CONSIDERATION.
The fact that the law as it is now (during thetime of Armentia) no longer deems contracts with a false
cause, or which are absolutely simulated orfictitious, merely voidable, but declares them void, i.e.,
inexistent (nulo) unless it is shown that theyare supported by another true and lawful cause or
consideration
NOT A VALID SALE. Upon the consideration alone that the apparent gross, not to say enormous,
disproportion between thestipulated price in each deed of P1 plus unspecified and unquantilled services
and the undisputablyvaluable real estate allegedly sold (worth at least P10,500.00) plainly and
unquestionably demonstrates that they state a false and fictitious consideration, and no other true
andlawful cause having been shown, the Court finds both said deeds, insofar as they purport to be
sales,not merely voidable, but void ab initio.
ALSO NOT A VALID DONATION
Donations of immovable property, to be valid, must be made and accepted in a public instrument, and it
is not denied by Retonil, et. al. that there has been no such acceptance which they claim is not required.
PETITIONERS BAGTAS CAN RECOVER. The transfers in question being void, it follows as a
necessary consequence and conformably to theconcurring opinion in Armentia case, that the properties
purportedly conveyed remained part of the estate of Hilario Mateum, said transfers notwithstanding,

recoverable by his intestate heirs, i.e. Bagtas, et.al., whose status as such is not challenged