20 REGINA FRANCISCO AND ZENAIDA PASCUAL vs.

AIDA FRANCISCO-
ALFONSO (March 8, 2001 PARDO, J.)
The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary
estate of the father and of the mother.

Facts:
Respondent Aida Francisco-Alfonso is the only daughter of Gregorio Francisco and Cirila
de la Cruz (both deceased). Petitioners, on the other hand, are daughters of the late Gregorio
Francisco with his common law wife Julia Mendoza, with whom he begot seven children.
Gregorio owned two parcels of residential land in Bocaue, Bulacan. When he was confined
in a hospital, he confided to Aida that the certificates of title of his property were in the possession
of Regina Francisco and Zenaida Pascual.
After Gregorio died (July 20, 1990) Aida inquired about the certificates of title from her half
sisters. Aida learned that there was a deed of absolute sale in favor of Regina and Zenaida.
Gregorio executed a Kasulatan sa Ganap na Bilihan whereby he sold (for P25,000.00) the two
parcels of land to petitioners. Two TCTs were issued in their names. Thus, Aida filed a complaint
annulment of sale with damages. She alleged that the signature of her late father was a forgery.
The RTC sustained the validity of the Kasulatan and of the TCTs. The CA reversed.

Issues:
WON the contract of sale was valid (NO)

Ruling:
There was no cause or consideration for the sale, the same was a simulation and hence, null
and void. Felicitas de la Cruz, a family friend of the Franciscos, testified that petitioners did not
have any source of income when they bought the property (1983).
We find it incredible that engaging in buy and sell of ready to wear items (Zenaida) could
raise the amount of P10,000.00, or that earnings in selling goto (Regina) could save enough to pay
P15,000.00, in cash for the land. The testimonies of petitioners were inconsistent as to the
consideration for the sale. They could not even present a single witness to the kasulatan that would
prove receipt of the purchase price.
Moreover, even if the kasulatan was not simulated, it still violated the Civil Code. The sale
was executed in 1983, the applicable law was not the Family Code.
Article 888, Civil Code: The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-
half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. The latter may freely dispose of the
remaining half subject to the rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as
hereinafter provided.
Gregorio Francisco did not own any other property. If the parcels of land were the only
property left by their father, the sale would deprive Aida of her share in her father’s estate. By law,
she is entitled to half of the estate of her father as his only legitimate child.

Other issue:
WON the Supreme Court may review the factual findings of the appellate court (NO)
The jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals under
Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to review of pure errors of law. It is not the
function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that
the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to
constitute grave abuse of discretion.