Lawyerly

GR No. 196083

2015-11-11

PERALTA, J.

The burden of proving the alleged simulation of a contract falls on those who impugn its regularity and validity. A failure to discharge this duty will result in the upholding of the contract. The primary consideration in determining whether a contract is simulated is the intention of the parties as manifested by the express terms of the agreement itself, as well as the contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties. The most striking index of simulation is not the filial relationship between the purported seller and buyer, but the complete absence of any attempt in any manner on the part of the latter to assert rights of dominion over the disputed property.[16]

GR No. 169055

2012-02-22

SPS. JOSE AND MILAGROS VILLACERAN AND FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. JOSEPHINE DE GUZMAN

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties. If the words of a contract appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail. Such intention is determined not only from the express terms of their agreement, but also from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties.[22] In the case at bar, there is a relative simulation of contract as the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 19, 1996 executed by De Guzman in favor of petitioners did not reflect the true intention of the parties.

GR NO. 155208

2007-03-27

NENA LAZALITA TATING v. FELICIDAD MARCELLA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The CA and the trial court ruled that the contract of sale between petitioner and Daniela is simulated. A contract is simulated if the parties do not intend to be bound at all (absolutely simulated) or if the parties conceal their true agreement (relatively simulated).[19] The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties.[20] Such intention is determined from the express terms of their agreement as well as from their contemporaneous and subsequent acts.[21]

GR NO. 146550

2006-03-17

FELIPA DELFIN v. PRESENTACION D. BILLONES

TINGA, J.

A contract or conduct apparently honest and lawful must be treated as such until it is shown to be otherwise by either positive or circumstantial evidence.[31] A duly executed contract carries with it the presumption of validity. The party who impugns its regularity has the burden of proving its simulation.[32] A notarized document is executed to lend truth to the statements contained therein and to the authenticity of the signatures. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.[33]

GR NO. 111388

2005-08-31

JOSE INGUSAN v. CA

CORONA, J.

[5] Ramos v. Heirs of Honorio Ramos, Sr., G.R. No. 140848, 25 April 2002, 381 SCRA 594.

GR NO. 152658

2005-08-29

LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO

CARPIO, J.

Simulation of contract and gross inadequacy of price are distinct legal concepts, with different effects. When the parties to an alleged contract do not really intend to be bound by it, the contract is simulated and void.[28] A simulated or fictitious contract has no legal effect whatsoever[29] because there is no real agreement between the parties.

GR NO. 132887

2005-08-11

MANILA BANKING CORPORATION v. EDMUNDO S. SILVERIO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Taken together with the other circumstances surrounding the sale, Edmundo's failure to exercise acts of dominium over the subject properties buttresses TMBC's position that the former did not at all intend to be bound by the contract of sale. In Suntay,[46] as reiterated in such cases as Santiago v. Court of Appeals,[47] Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation[48] and Ramos v. Heirs of Ramos, Sr.,[49] we held that "the most proturberant index of simulation is the complete absence of an attempt in any manner on the part of the [ostensible buyer] to assert his rights of ownership over the [properties] in question." The supposed buyer's failure to take exclusive possession of the property allegedly sold or, in the alternative, to collect rentals, is contrary to the principle of ownership.[50] Such failure is a clear badge of simulation that renders the whole transaction void pursuant to Article 1409 of the Civil Code.[51]

GR No. 152658

2005-07-29

LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO

CARPIO, J.

Simulation of contract and gross inadequacy of price are distinct legal concepts, with different effects. When the parties to an alleged contract do not really intend to be bound by it, the contract is simulated and void.[28] A simulated or fictitious contract has no legal effect whatsoever[29] because there is no real agreement between the parties.

GR No. 150925

2004-05-27

SPS. JAMES TAN AND FLORENCE TAN v. MANDAP

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioners do not dispute the fact that the notary public who notarized the deeds of sale was not duly commissioned. But they contend the deeds' validity were not affected. However, it bears stressing that even an apparently valid notarization of a document does not guarantee its validity.[9] The crucial point here is that while Mandap, Sr., testified that he executed the deeds of sale in Las Piñas, the said documents were actually notarized in Manila. Mandap, Sr., did not personally appear before a notary public. Yet the documents stated the contrary. Such falsity raises doubt regarding the genuineness of the vendor's alleged consent to the deeds of sale.

GR No. 157860

2003-12-01

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The freedom of contract is both a constitutional and statutory right and to uphold this right, courts should move with all the necessary caution and prudence in holding contracts void.[15] Furthermore, a duly executed contract carries with it the presumption of validity.[16] In the assailed decision, the Court of Appeals simply ruled that the absence of a prior appraised valuation by the local committee on awards rendered the donation null and void. This, to our mind, did not sufficiently overcome the presumption of validity of the contract, considering that there is no express provision in the law which requires that the said valuation is a condition sine qua non for the validity of a donation.

GR No. 146341

2003-08-07

AQUILA LARENA JOINED BY HER HUSBAND v. FRUCTUOSA MAPILI

PANGANIBAN, J.

Laches is likewise unavailing. Defined, it is the "failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which could or should have been done earlier through the exercise of due diligence."[53] It is an "omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned or declined to assert it."[54]

	GR No. 196083 2015-11-11	MILAGROS C. REYES v. FELIX P. ASUNCION PERALTA, J.
The burden of proving the alleged simulation of a contract falls on those who impugn its regularity and validity. A failure to discharge this duty will result in the upholding of the contract. The primary consideration in determining whether a contract is simulated is the intention of the parties as manifested by the express terms of the agreement itself, as well as the contemporaneous and subsequent actions of the parties. The most striking index of simulation is not the filial relationship between the purported seller and buyer, but the complete absence of any attempt in any manner on the part of the latter to assert rights of dominion over the disputed property.[16]
	GR No. 169055 2012-02-22	SPS. JOSE AND MILAGROS VILLACERAN AND FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. JOSEPHINE DE GUZMAN VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties. If the words of a contract appear to contravene the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail. Such intention is determined not only from the express terms of their agreement, but also from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties.[22] In the case at bar, there is a relative simulation of contract as the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 19, 1996 executed by De Guzman in favor of petitioners did not reflect the true intention of the parties.
	GR NO. 155208 2007-03-27	NENA LAZALITA TATING v. FELICIDAD MARCELLA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The CA and the trial court ruled that the contract of sale between petitioner and Daniela is simulated. A contract is simulated if the parties do not intend to be bound at all (absolutely simulated) or if the parties conceal their true agreement (relatively simulated).[19] The primary consideration in determining the true nature of a contract is the intention of the parties.[20] Such intention is determined from the express terms of their agreement as well as from their contemporaneous and subsequent acts.[21]
	GR NO. 146550 2006-03-17	FELIPA DELFIN v. PRESENTACION D. BILLONES TINGA, J.
A contract or conduct apparently honest and lawful must be treated as such until it is shown to be otherwise by either positive or circumstantial evidence.[31] A duly executed contract carries with it the presumption of validity. The party who impugns its regularity has the burden of proving its simulation.[32] A notarized document is executed to lend truth to the statements contained therein and to the authenticity of the signatures. Notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence.[33]
	GR NO. 111388 2005-08-31	JOSE INGUSAN v. CA CORONA, J.
[5] Ramos v. Heirs of Honorio Ramos, Sr., G.R. No. 140848, 25 April 2002, 381 SCRA 594.
	GR NO. 152658 2005-08-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
Simulation of contract and gross inadequacy of price are distinct legal concepts, with different effects. When the parties to an alleged contract do not really intend to be bound by it, the contract is simulated and void.[28] A simulated or fictitious contract has no legal effect whatsoever[29] because there is no real agreement between the parties.
	GR NO. 132887 2005-08-11	MANILA BANKING CORPORATION v. EDMUNDO S. SILVERIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Taken together with the other circumstances surrounding the sale, Edmundo's failure to exercise acts of dominium over the subject properties buttresses TMBC's position that the former did not at all intend to be bound by the contract of sale. In Suntay,[46] as reiterated in such cases as Santiago v. Court of Appeals,[47] Cruz v. Bancom Finance Corporation[48] and Ramos v. Heirs of Ramos, Sr.,[49] we held that "the most proturberant index of simulation is the complete absence of an attempt in any manner on the part of the [ostensible buyer] to assert his rights of ownership over the [properties] in question." The supposed buyer's failure to take exclusive possession of the property allegedly sold or, in the alternative, to collect rentals, is contrary to the principle of ownership.[50] Such failure is a clear badge of simulation that renders the whole transaction void pursuant to Article 1409 of the Civil Code.[51]
	GR No. 152658 2005-07-29	LILY ELIZABETH BRAVO-GUERRERO v. EDWARD P. BRAVO CARPIO, J.
Simulation of contract and gross inadequacy of price are distinct legal concepts, with different effects. When the parties to an alleged contract do not really intend to be bound by it, the contract is simulated and void.[28] A simulated or fictitious contract has no legal effect whatsoever[29] because there is no real agreement between the parties.
	GR No. 150925 2004-05-27	SPS. JAMES TAN AND FLORENCE TAN v. MANDAP QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners do not dispute the fact that the notary public who notarized the deeds of sale was not duly commissioned. But they contend the deeds' validity were not affected. However, it bears stressing that even an apparently valid notarization of a document does not guarantee its validity.[9] The crucial point here is that while Mandap, Sr., testified that he executed the deeds of sale in Las Piñas, the said documents were actually notarized in Manila. Mandap, Sr., did not personally appear before a notary public. Yet the documents stated the contrary. Such falsity raises doubt regarding the genuineness of the vendor's alleged consent to the deeds of sale.
	GR No. 157860 2003-12-01	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The freedom of contract is both a constitutional and statutory right and to uphold this right, courts should move with all the necessary caution and prudence in holding contracts void.[15] Furthermore, a duly executed contract carries with it the presumption of validity.[16] In the assailed decision, the Court of Appeals simply ruled that the absence of a prior appraised valuation by the local committee on awards rendered the donation null and void. This, to our mind, did not sufficiently overcome the presumption of validity of the contract, considering that there is no express provision in the law which requires that the said valuation is a condition sine qua non for the validity of a donation.
	GR No. 146341 2003-08-07	AQUILA LARENA JOINED BY HER HUSBAND v. FRUCTUOSA MAPILI PANGANIBAN, J.
Laches is likewise unavailing. Defined, it is the "failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which could or should have been done earlier through the exercise of due diligence."[53] It is an "omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled thereto has either abandoned or declined to assert it."[54]

RAMON RAMOS v. HEIRS OF HONORIO RAMOS SR.