LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO, BEN MAURICIO P. BRAVO,[1] ROLAND P. BRAVO, JR.

, OFELIA BRAVO-
QUIESTAS, HEIRS OF CORPUSINIA BRAVO-NIOR namely: GERSON U. NIOR, MARK GERRY B. NIOR, CLIFF
RICHARD B. NIOR, BRYAN B. NIOR, WIDMARK B. NIOR, SHERRY ANNE B. NIOR, represented by LILY
ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO as their attorney-in-fact, and HONORABLE FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR.,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 139, Makati City, petitioners, vs. EDWARD P. BRAVO,
represented by his attorney-in-fact FATIMA C. BRAVO, respondent, and DAVID B. DIAZ, JR., intervenor-
respondent.

FACTS:

Spouses Mauricio Bravo ("Mauricio") and Simona Andaya Bravo ("Simona") owned two parcelsof land ("Properties") located
along Evangelista Street, Makati City, Metro Manila. They havethree children - Roland, Cesar and Lily, all surnamed Bravo.
Cesar died without issue. LilyBravo married David Diaz, and had a son, David B. Diaz, Jr. ("David Jr."). Roland had
sixchildren, namely, Lily Elizabeth Bravo-Guerrero ("Elizabeth"), Edward Bravo ("Edward"), RolandBravo, Jr. ("Roland Jr."),
Senia Bravo, Benjamin Mauricio Bravo, and their half-sister, OfeliaBravo ("Ofelia"). Simona executed a General Power of
Attorney ("GPA") on 17 June 1966 appointing Mauricio asher attorney-in-fact. In the GPA, Simona authorized Mauricio to
"mortgage or otherwise hypothecate, sell, assign and dispose of any and all of my property, real, personal or mixed, of any
kind whatsoever and wheresoever situated, or any interest therein xxx." Mauricio subsequently mortgaged the Properties
to the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) for P10,000 and P5,000, respectively.

On 25 October 1970, Mauricio executed a Deed of Sale with Assumption of Real EstateMortgage ("Deed of Sale") conveying
the Properties to "Roland A. Bravo, Ofelia A. Bravo andElizabeth Bravo ("vendees"). However, the Deed of Sale was not
annotated on TCT Nos.58999 and 59000. Neither was it presented to PNB and DBP. The mortage loans and the receipts
for loan payments issued by PNB and DBP continued to be in Mauricios name even after his death on 20 November 1973.
Simona died in 1977.On 23 June 1997, Edward, represented by his wife, Fatima Bravo, filed an action for the judicial
partition of the Properties. Edward claimed that he and the other grandchildren of Mauricio and Simona are co-owners of
the Properties by succession. Despite this, petitioners refused to share with him the possession and rental income of the
Properties.

ISSUE: Whether or not there is a valid Price or Considereation regaring the sale of the subject lot.

HELD: The court ruled that in a sale, cash of equivalent value replaces the property taken from the estate. There is no
diminution of the estate but merely a substitution in values. Donations and other dispositions by gratuitous title, on the other
hand, must be included in the computation of legitimes.

Respondents, however, contend that the sale of the Properties was merely simulated. As proof, respondents point to the
consideration of P1,000 in the Deed of Sale, which respondents claim is grossly inadequate compared to the actual value
of the Properties.

Simulation of contract and gross inadequacy of price are distinct legal concepts, with different effects. When the parties to
an alleged contract do not really intend to be bound by it, the contract is simulated and void. A simulated or fictitious contract
has no legal effect whatsoever because there is no real agreement between the parties.

In contrast, a contract with inadequate consideration may nevertheless embody a true agreement between the parties. A
contract of sale is a consensual contract, which becomes valid and binding upon the meeting of minds of the parties on the
price and the object of the sale.The concept of a simulated sale is thus incompatible with inadequacy of price. When the
parties agree on a price as the actual consideration, the sale is not simulated despite the inadequacy of the price.

Gross inadequacy of price by itself will not result in a void contract. Gross inadequacy of price does not even affect the
validity of a contract of sale, unless it signifies a defect in the consent or that the parties actually intended a donation or
some other contract. Inadequacy of cause will not invalidate a contract unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue
influence. In this case, respondents have not proved any of the instances that would invalidate the Deed of Sale.

Respondents even failed to establish that the consideration paid by the vendees for the Properties was grossly inadequate.
As the trial court pointed out, the Deed of Sale stipulates that, in addition to the payment of P1,000, the vendees should
assume the mortgage loans from PNB and DBP. The consideration for the sale of the Properties was thus P1,000 in cash
and the assumption of the P15,000 mortgage.

Assuming that the vendees failed to pay the full price stated in the Deed of Sale, such partial failure would not render the
sale void. In Buenaventura v. Court of Appeals, the Court held:
xxx If there is a meeting of the minds of the parties as to the price, the contract of sale is valid, despite the manner of
payment, or even the breach of that manner of payment. xxx

It is not the act of payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale. Payment of the price has nothing to do
with the perfection of the contract. Payment of the price goes into the performance of the contract. Failure to pay the
consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of
the obligation under an existing valid contract while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract.

RAMON RAMOS, petitioner, vs. HEIRS OF HONORIO RAMOS SR.; namely, PUREZA N. RAMOS, HONORIO RAMOS
JR. and GWENDOLYN RAMOS-GARCIA, respondents.

FACTS: Lucio Ramos and Salud Abejuela are spouses. Lucio died on May 31, 1974 and Salud on September 17, 1966.
Out of their marriage, they begot the following children, namely: Juan Ramos, Honorio Ramos, Josefa Ramos and Ramon
Ramos.

During their lifetime, they acquired real properties situated at Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City.
Sometime in September 1972, the above-named children and Lucio Ramos himself, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement
of the estate of the deceased Salud Abejuela. On March 26, 1975, Juan Ramos and Josefa Ramos Reyes filed in the then
Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, a complaint for partition and annulment of confirmatory deeds of sale against
Ramon A. Ramos and Honorio Ramos. Parties to said case, however, on November 10, 1975, submitted a compromise
agreement which was approved and adopted by the court as its decision in the case.

Very much earlier, however, or to be exact, on January 11, 1954, there appeared a [D]eed of [A]bsolute [S]ale executed by
Salud Abejuela in favor of Ramon Ramos married to Nena Villamil and resident of Cagayan de Oro City. Subject of the sale
was Lot No. 2961 of the Cagayan Cadastral located at Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City containing an area of 50,000
square meters and an alleged exclusive property of said Salud Abejuela.

On July 30, 1991, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City (Branch 20), [6] a suit against
petitioner for the conveyance of title and partition of Lot 2961.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Salud Abejuela-Ramos on January 11, 1954 was [a] real
and genuine sale conveying ownership of the land in favor of the vendee;

HELD: The court ruled that the primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the
parties. Such intention is determined from the express terms of their agreement as well as from their contemporaneous and
subsequent act.When they have no intention to be bound at all, the purported contract is absolutely simulated and void.
When they conceal their true agreement, it is not completely void and they are bound to their real agreement, provided it is
not prejudicial to a third person and is not intended for any purpose that is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order or public policy. A duly executed contract carries with it the presumption of validity. The party who impugns its
regularity has the burden of proving its simulation. , the plaintiff has the burden of proving facts asserted in the complaint,
petition or declaration.[22] Hence, respondents -- as plaintiffs in the case for partition and annulment of contract -- had the
burden of showing that the 1954 Deed was simulated, a burden they failed to discharge.

HEIRS OF CAYETANO PANGAN and CONSUELO PANGAN vs. ROGELIO PERRERAS and PRISCILLA
PERRERAS

FACTS: Consuelo Pangan agreed to sell their lot and two-door apartment in Sampaloc, Manila to spouses Perreras
for P540,000 and received P20,000 as earnest money from the latter. Spouses Perreras issued two checks payable
to Consuelo amounting to P450,000, however, Consuelo refused to accept the checks because of the refusal of
her children/heirs. Complaint for consignation filed by Consuelo in RTC Manila Institution of action of specific
performance by the Perreras in RTC Manila to execute a Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject properties.
Consuelos Answer: because of her husbands death, their children as heirs became co-owners of the subject
properties and their consent are needed to execute the sale.
RTC ruled in favor of the Perreras: it upheld the existence of a perfected contract of sale, at least insofar as the
sale involved Consuelos conjugal and hereditary shares in the subject properties.

CA ruling: it found that the payment and receipt of earnest money was the operative act that gave rise to a perfected
contract, and that there was nothing in the parties agreement that would indicate that it was subject to a suspensive
condition.

Issue: Was there a perfected contract executed by the Pangans and Perreras.

Held: There was a perfected contract between the parties since all the essential requisites of a contract were
present. Article 1318 of the Civil Code declares that no contract exists unless the following requisites concur: (1)
consent of the contracting parties; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of
the obligation established. Since the object of the parties agreement involves properties co-owned by Consuelo
and her children, the petitioners-heirs insist that their approval of the sale initiated by their mother, Consuelo, was
essential to its perfection. Accordingly, their refusal amounted to the absence of the required element of consent.
However, a thing sold without the consent of all the co-owners does not invalidate the sale or render it void. Article
493 of the Civil Code recognizes the absolute right of a co-owner to freely dispose of his pro indiviso share as well
as the fruits and other benefits arising from that share, independently of the other co-owners. Thus, when Consuelo
agreed to sell to the respondents the subject properties, what she in fact sold was her undivided interest that, as
quantified by the RTC, consisted of one-half interest, representing her conjugal share, and one-sixth interest,
representing her hereditary share. Furthermore, the existence of a perfected contract between the parties are
evidenced by the payment and receipt of P20,000.00, an earnest money by the contracting parties common usage.
Article 1482 of the Civil Code provides that whenever earnest money is given in a contract of sale, it shall be
considered as part of the price and proof of the perfection of the contract. SC ruled in favor of the respondents.