Bagnas vs.

CA

G.R. No. L-38498 August 10, 1989

ISAAC BAGNAS, ENCARNACION BAGNAS, SILVESTRE BAGNAS MAXIMINA BAGNAS, SIXTO BAGNAS
and AGATONA ENCARNACION, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ROSA L. RETONIL TEOFILO ENCARNACION, and JOSE B. NAMBAYAN
respondents.

Facts:
Hilario Mateum died single, without any ascendants or descendants. He was survived only by collateral relatives, with
petitioners, his first cousins, the nearest in degree. Mateum left no will, no debts, and an estate of twenty nine parcels
of land, ten of which are involved in his appeal.

Private respondents are collateral relatives of Mateum as well, although more remote in degree than petitioners. They
registered with the Registry of Deeds two deeds of sale allegedly executed by Mateum in their favor covering the ten
parcels of land. Each had the reconsideration of the sale at "halagang ISANG PISO (P1.00) at mga naipaglingkod,
ipinaglilingkod sa aking kapakanan ..." Both of these deeds were dated one year before Mateum's death. Due to the
deeds of sale, respondents were able to secure in their title three of the ten parcels of land. The properties in
question were in fact assessed for more than P10,000.00.

Petitioners sought the annulment of the deeds of sale. They claimed that such were fictitious, fraudulent or falsified,
or, alternatively, as donations void for want of acceptance embodied in a public instrument. They prayed for the
recovery of ownership and possession, by virtue of being intestate heirs of
Mateum.

Issue:
Whether the sales are void or voidable.

Held:
If the sales were only voidable, then since Mateum had no forced heirs whose legitimes may have been impaired,
and the petitioners being collateral relatives who are not bound principally or subsidiarily to the terms of said deeds,
then petitioners would have no actionable right to question the transfers.

On the other hand if they deeds were void ab initio because they are without consideration, then the transaction was
inexistent and void from the beginning. The property would never leave the patrimony of the transferor, and upon the
death of the latter without a will the property would pass to the transferor's heirs intestate.

It is apparent that there is a gross and enormous disproportion between the stipulated price of P1.00 plus unspecified
services and the estimated value of P10,000.00. The assessment is in fact for tax purposes which are well-known to
be notoriously low indicators of actual value. This clearly demonstrates that they state a false and fictitious
consideration, and no lawful cause having been shown, both deeds are not merely voidable, but void ab initio.

Respondents cannot rely on their contention that the true causa is the liberality of Mateum and that they are actually
donations. The law prescribes that donations of immovables must be made and accepted in a public instrument, and
there has been no such claim.

The transfers being void, it then follows that the properties remained part of Mateum's estate, recoverable by his
intestate heirs, the petitioners therein.
The respondents only have themselves to blame for lack of proof that might have said the transfers from invalidity.
They could have presented proof of the character and value of the services, past, present, and future, as indicated in
the very terms of the said transfers. The onus of showing the existence of a valid and licit consideration for the
conveyances rested on the respondents. The burden was shifted to the private respondents when the petitioners
presented the deeds which they claimed showed that defect on their face and it became the duty of said respondents
to offer evidence of existent lawful consideration.