Ong vs.

Ong

IMELDA ONG, ET. AL. v. ALFREDO ONG, ET. AL.

G.R. No. L-67888
8 October 1985
RELOVA, J.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
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. (1277)

Art. 1470. Gross inadequacy of price does not affect a contract of sale, except as it may indicate a defect in the consent, or that the parties really
intended a donation or some other act or contract. (n)

FACTS:
 25 Feb 1976: P Imelda Ong executed a Quitclaim Deed in favor of R Sandra Maruzzo (minor) in consideration One Peso (P1.00). This document
transferred, released, assigned and forever quit-claimed to R, her heirs & assigns, all of P’s rights, title, interest and participation in the ½
undivided portion of the parcel of land located in Makati, Province of Rizal
 19 Nov 1980: Imelda revoked the Quitclaim Deed
 20 Jan 1982: Imelda donated whole property to son, Rex Ong-Jimenez
 20 June 1983: Alfredo Ong, R’s guardian ad litem, filed with RTC of Makati an action for recovery of ownership/possession and nullification of the
Deed of Donation over the portion belonging to R and for Accounting
 P’s defense: Quitclaim Deed is null & void – equivalent to Deed of Donation, acceptance of which is necessary to give it validity; R Maruzzo, who
was a minor, had no legal capacity and is therefore incapable of accepting the donation

RTC of Makati: Ruled in favor of Maruzzo

Quitclaim Deed = Deed of Sale  therefore there was a valid conveyance in favor of R

 P appealed to IAC: P1.00 consideration not a consideration at all to sustain the ruling that Deed of Quitclaim is a Deed of Sale

IAC: Affirmed appealed RTC judgment

Quitclaim Deed was a conveyance of property with valid cause or consideration  the apparent inadequacy (P1.00) was usual practice in deeds of
conveyance, wherein nominal amounts were placed although there is a more valuable consideration given

 P appealed to SC
 15 March1985: Omnibus Motion filed by guardian ad litem Alfredo Ong that R Maruzzo has reached the age of majority (evidenced by birth
certificate) and prays that she substitute Alfredo Ong as respondent in this case  granted in a resolution issued by SC

ISSUE: W/N the Quitclaim Deed was a Deed of Donation or a Deed of Sale

HELD: The Quitclaim Deed was a Deed of Sale

Careful perusal of the deed reveals that the conveyance was for and in consideration of P1.00 and other valuable considerations paid by R through her
representative (Alfredo Ong)

ARTICLE 1354 IS APPLICABLE: LEGAL PRESUMPTION OF SUFFICIENT CAUSE OR CONSIDERATION SUPPORTING A CONTRACT EVEN IF
CAUSE IS NOT STATED THEREIN
 Ruling of the IAC (quoted by SC): This presumption cannot be overcome by a simple assertion of lack of consideration especially when
contract itself states that consideration was given, and the same has been reduced to a public instrument with all due formalities and
solemnities.
 Preponderance of Evidence is necessary to rebut this presumption.
 Execution of deed purporting to convey ownership of a realty is in itself PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of the existence of a valuable
consideration. The party alleging lack of consideration has the BURDEN OF PROVING such allegation.

EVEN GRANTING THAT IT IS A DONATION: Article 741 of the Civil Code1 applies only to onerous and conditional donations where the
donation may have to assume certain charges or burdens. But in a simple & pure donation, formal acceptance is not important. The Quitclaim
Deed in this case imposes no condition whatsoever.
 Kapunan v. Casilan & Court of Appeals: Donation to an incapacitated done does not need acceptance by the lawful representative if said
donation does not contain any condition

This decision finds further support in the case of Morales Development Co. Inc. v. CA: “Bad faith and inadequacy of the monetary consideration do not
render a conveyance inexistent, for the assignor’s liberality may be sufficient cause for a valid contract (Article 1350)…”

IAC DECISION AFFIRMED; COSTS AGAINST PETITIONERS

1 Art. 741. Minors and others who cannot enter into a contract may become donees but acceptance shall be done
through their parents or legal representatives. (626a)