Title
Cuarto vs. de Luna
Case
G.R. No. L-23279
Decision Date
Jan 31, 1968
The court ruled in favor of the widow, nullifying fraudulent transactions that unlawfully transferred ownership of conjugal properties.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23279)

Facts:

  • Alejandra Cuarto is the plaintiff-appellant against Estelita de Luna, Leonardo de Luna, Irene Castillo, Bonifacio Nakpil, and Aida Soliman, the defendants-appellees.
  • Alejandra and her deceased husband, Sotero de Luna, acquired two lots in San Juan Heights Subdivision during their marriage.
  • The properties, Lots 11-A and 12, measured 433 and 503 square meters, respectively, and were documented under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 12999 and 10383 of Rizal.
  • On November 13, 1947, Sotero executed a simulated deed of sale, transferring the lots to his daughter Estelita for P1,000.00, which was never paid.
  • Estelita then sold the properties to her brother Leonardo and his wife Irene, leading to new titles (TCT Nos. 24871 and 74965).
  • On December 29, 1962, Leonardo and Irene simulated a third sale to Bonifacio Nakpil and Aida Soliman, resulting in TCT Nos. 106286 and 106287.
  • Alejandra claimed the transactions were fictitious and asserted her right to half of the properties as conjugal assets.
  • The Nakpils filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the action was barred by prescription under sections 40 and 41 of Act No. 190.
  • The Court of First Instance of Rizal granted the motion on September 5, 1963, concluding the transactions were voidable and that more than ten years had elapsed since the first transaction.
  • Alejandra's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading her to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which was later certified to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's orders, ruling that the transactions were inexistent, not merely voidable.
  • The Court held that the action for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.
  • The Cou...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court's decision was based on the principle that fictitious and simulated transactions lack legal existence.
  • A motion to dismiss admits the truth of the allegations in the complaint, which described the transactions as fictitious and without consideration, rendering them inexistent.
  • The Court referenc...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.