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:
Held:

Whether the sales are void or voidable.

If the sales were only voidable, then since Mateum had no forced hiers whose legitimes may have
been impaired, and the petitioners being collateral relatives who are not bound pricipally or subsidiarilly 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.