Calsado, Lourdes Antonette V.

151662
Amparo Gonzalez and Alfredo Trinidad vs Primitivo Trinidad and Maria Ynares
G.R. No. L-45965; April 29, 1939
Cause of contracts: as distinguished from motive – Art. 1351

FACTS:
In November 11, 1931, Primitivo Trinidad and Maria Ynares executed a deed of sale of an urban
property in Manila in favor of Amparo Gonzalez and Alfredo Trinidad for 10,000 pesos. This property
was mortgaged in the Bureau of Land for 6,500 pesos, Gonzalez and Trinidad assumed the encumbrance.
However, this sale was simulated and Trinidad and Ynares did not receive payment for the sale of the
land. The sale was only to prevent property from attachment to Dr. Ramon Papa who executed a 4,000-
peso credit for Primitivo Trinidad. Before the credit was paid for, Ramon Papa died and the credit to be
paid for was adjudicated to Carmen Papa. Carmen and Primitivo agreed that Primitivo would pay her as
soon as he had the money to do so. After the attachment was prevented, Primitivo filed a suit against
Alfredo and the CFI ruled in favor of that the deed of sale is null and void and dismissed plaintiff’s action
and defendant’s counterclaim under Article 1305 and 1306 of the Civil Code. Primitivo appealed in the
CA who reversed the ruling of the CFI declaring the deed of sale null and void and ordering the
cancellation of the transfer certificate of title by the registrar of deeds of said city. Gonzalez and A.
Trinidad filed a petition for certiorari for this ruling.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred declaring Article 1305 & 1306 of the Civil Code inapplicable
in this case?
RULING:
NO. The CA did not err in their ruling to reverse the CFI’s decision because Article 1305 and 1306 are not
applicable when the contract between parties due illegal consideration or subject matter. If the contract of
sale was onerous and the consideration of 10,000 pesos was lawful and not penalized by law, it would
have been applicable. In this case, the contract was fictitious and the sale was simulated, the consideration
was lacking so the contract is null and void per se or nonexistent. Further, Manresa creates a distinction
between consideration and motive: But when the notion of consideration is applied to contracts,..., the
why of the contacts, the essential reason which moves the contracting parties to enter into the contract. In
this sense, expressed in the provisions of the Code, the consideration is related to the personal element of
the contract, because it represents the demand of reasonable and legal motives for the determination
of the wills which concur in consent. In a contract like that of a sale, the thing and the price are the
subject matter of the contract; but in consideration thereof, the consideration for the purchaser and the
vendor is determined as indicated by the first of the definitions contained in article 1274.
DISPOSITIVE:
We conclude that the Court of Appeals did not commit the errors assigned, wherefore, we deny the
remedy sought, with the costs to the petitioner-appellants. So ordered.