Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23002)
Facts:
Concepcion Felix Vda. de Rodriguez v. Geronimo Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-23002, July 31, 1967, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant Concepcion Felix Vda. de Rodriguez (the widow) sued her late husband’s children and grandchildren (the defendants-appellees) to annul two conveyances dated January 24 and 27, 1934, and to recover ownership and received earnings from two fishponds (OCT Nos. 605 and 807; later TCTs 13815, 13816) located in Babangad, Bulacan. The complaint was filed on May 28, 1962 in the Court of First Instance (the appealed decision identifies the Court of First Instance of Bulacan), alleging that the 1934 transfers were fictitious, executed under duress and without consideration, and that she had been deprived of proceeds amounting to P56,976.58. As an alternative claim she sought her statutory share as surviving spouse should the properties be declared conjugal.
The 1934 instruments showed an apparent sale from appellant to her daughter, Concepcion Calderon, for P2,500 (Exh. A), and a subsequent transfer from the daughter to the spouses Domingo Rodriguez and appellant for P3,000 (Exh. B); both deeds were notarized and registered, producing TCT Nos. 13815 and 13816 in the names of the spouses. Domingo died intestate on March 6, 1953. On March 16, 1953 his heirs and widow executed an extrajudicial settlement treating the fishponds as partly conjugal; partition and new titles (TCT Nos. T-11431, T-14432, later T-12910, T-12911 and TCT No. 16660) were issued to the heirs and to appellant. Subsequent instruments included a power of attorney (Mar. 23, 1953), a formal partition (July 2, 1954), a grant of lifetime usufruct (Oct. 12, 1954), and a lease (Dec. 15, 1961) over portions of the fishponds.
Defendants answered denying material allegations and pleaded lack of cause of action, prescription, estoppel and laches; they counterclaimed for unpaid balances (P3,000) and attorney’s fees. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment for defendants on October 5, 1963, finding (inter alia) that the 1934 transfers were voluntarily executed, that appellant had ratified them by participating in later transactions (extrajudicial settlement and partitions), and that actions based on duress were barred by the four‑year period of Article 1301 of the Civil Code. The trial court applied the doctrine that contracts without consideration are voidable not nonexistent (citing Concepcion v. Sta. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is appellant’s action alleging duress time‑barred?
- Were the 1934 conveyances simulated or fictitious (inexistent)?
- Were the 1934 conveyances inexistent for lack of consideration (causa)?
- Were the conveyances void or ineffective because they were made to circumvent the prohibition against donations between spouses (i.e., illegal causa), and if so, may appellant recover notwithstanding her own participation (in pari delicto), or...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)