Lawyerly

GR No. 175483

2015-10-14

JARDELEZA, J.

Article 1471 of the Civil Code provides that "if the price is simulated, the sale is void." Where a deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void for lack of consideration.[63] Thus, although the contracts state that the purchase price of P250,000.00 and P60,000.00 were paid by petitioner to Adela for the Properties, the evidence shows that the contrary is true, because no money changed hands. Apart from her testimony, petitioner did not present proof that she paid for the Properties.

GR No. 196577

2013-02-25

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BARBARA SAMPAGA POBLETE

CARPIO, J.

A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that only questions of law may be raised, subject to exceptional circumstances[14] which are not present in this case. Hence, factual findings of the trial court, especially if affirmed by the CA, are binding on us.[15] In this case, both the RTC and the CA found that the signatures of Poblete and her deceased husband in the Deed dated 11 August 2000 were forged by Maniego. In addition, the evidence is preponderant that Maniego did not pay the consideration for the sale. Since the issue on the genuineness of the Deed dated 11 August 2000 is essentially a question of fact, we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh the evidence again.[16]

GR No. 196577

2013-02-25

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BARBARA SAMPAGA POBLETE

CARPIO, J.

It is a well-entrenched rule, as aptly applied by the CA, that a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title.[17] Moreover, where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is void ab initio for lack of consideration.[18] Since the Deed dated 11 August 2000 is void, the corresponding TCT No. T-20151 issued pursuant to the same deed is likewise void. In Yu Bun Guan v. Ong,[19] the Court ruled that there was no legal basis for the issuance of the certificate of title and the CA correctly cancelled the same when the deed of absolute sale was completely simulated, void and without effect. In Ereña v. Querrer-Kauffman,[20] the Court held that when the instrument presented for registration is forged, even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the mortgagee acquire any right or title to the property. In such a case, the mortgagee under the forged instrument is not a mortgagee protected by law.[21]

GR No. 165748

2011-09-14

HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA

MENDOZA, J.

It is well-settled in a long line of cases that where a deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void for lack of consideration.[28] Thus, although the contract states that the purchase price of ?2,000.00 was paid by Policronio to Alfonso for the subject properties, it has been proven that such was never in fact paid as there was no money involved. It must, therefore, follow that the Deed of Sale is void for lack of consideration.

GR No. 175021

2011-06-15

REPUBLIC v. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The respondent was able to establish that the LBP check was not received by her or by her authorized personnel. The PNP's own records show that it was claimed and signed for by Cruz, who is openly known as being connected to Highland Enterprises, another contractor. Hence, absent any showing that the respondent agreed to the payment of the contract price to another person, or that she authorized Cruz to claim the check on her behalf, the payment, to be effective must be made to her. [77]

GR No. 177710

2009-10-12

SPS. RAMON LEQUIN AND VIRGINIA LEQUIN v. SPS. RAYMUNDO VIZCONDE AND SALOME LEQUIN VIZCONDE

VELASCO JR., J.

There can be no doubt that the contract of sale or Kasulatan lacked the essential element of consideration. It is a well-entrenched rule that where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration.[18] Moreover, Art. 1471 of the Civil Code, which provides that "if the price is simulated, the sale is void," also applies to the instant case, since the price purportedly paid as indicated in the contract of sale was simulated for no payment was actually made.[19]

GR No. 175118

2008-07-21

SOLIDSTATE MULTI-PRODUCTS CORPORATION v. SPS. ERLINDA CATIENZA-VILLAVERDE AND VICTOR VILLAVERDE

TINGA, J,

The evidence clearly shows that while respondents acknowledged receipt of the amount of P96,000.00 in the Deed of Absolute Sale, such amount was not actually paid to them by petitioner. A contract of sale is void and produces no effect whatsoever where the price, which appears thereon as paid, has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.[18]

GR NO. 172446

2007-10-10

ALEXANDER “ALEX” MACASAET v. R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION

TINGA, J.

Applying these legal precepts to the case at bar, we hold that respondent has the right to rescind or cancel the deed of sale in view of petitioner's failure to pay the stipulated consideration. Montecillo v. Reynes,[27] cited by the appellate court, is particularly instructive in distinguishing the legal effects of "failure to pay consideration" and "lack of consideration:"

GR NO. 131260

2006-12-06

SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION v. RICHARD V. FUNK

CORONA, J.

The next two issues raised by petitioner (whether the SPA was approved by petitioner's Board of Trustees and the reasonableness of the attorney's fees) are questions of fact which we are not at liberty to review. In a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised. The Supreme Court is not the proper venue to consider factual issues as it is not a trier of facts.[19]

GR NO. 153198

2006-07-11

CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO v. PEOPLE

CORONA, J.

Besides, evidentiary matters or matters of fact raised in the court below are not proper in petitions for certiorari.[12] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Supreme Court[13] which is not a trier of facts.[14]

GR NO. 158149

2006-02-09

BOSTON BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERLA P. MANALO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

It is not enough for the parties to agree on the price of the property. The parties must also agree on the manner of payment of the price of the property to give rise to a binding and enforceable contract of sale or contract to sell. This is so because the agreement as to the manner of payment goes into the price, such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price.[58]

GR NO. 153514

2005-06-08

SPS. LAZARO M. ZULUETA AND PERLA SUCAYAN-ZULUETA v. JOSE WONG

CALLEJO, SR., J.

There is merit in the respondents' contention that, as held by the Court in Montecillo v. Reynes,[26] failure to pay the consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing contract, while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract. Where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration. The respondents are also correct in asserting that their first complaint stated causes of action showing the nullity of the sale, and for reconveyance and damages, and that the RTC erred in dismissing the case. As plaintiffs therein, the respondents alleged that there was no price or consideration for the sale and in fact had not received any consideration for the said sale, thereby implying that the price of P5,000.00 stated in the deed was simulated or fictitious. However, the respondents allowed the trial court's order of dismissal to become final and executory upon their failure to appeal the order within the period therefor. As a general proposition, the operation of a judgment or order on the merits of the case as res judicata is not affected by a mere right of appeal where the appeal has not been taken or by an appeal which has never been perfected.[27]

GR NO. 157146

2005-04-29

LAGUNA AUTOPARTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF SECRETARY

CALLEJO, SR., J.

In a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petitioner can raise only questions of law the Supreme Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts.[17] Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[18] This is particularly true where the CA affirms such findings of fact. In this case, the CA affirmed the finding of the Secretary of Labor and Employment that the respondent union is a legitimate labor organization.

GR No. 128120

2004-10-20

SWEDISH MATCH v. CA

TINGA, J,

Litonjua repeatedly stressed in his letters that they would not be able to submit their final bid by 30 June 1990.[43] With indubitable inconsistency, respondents later claimed that for all intents and purposes, the US$36 million was their final bid. If this were so, it would be inane for Litonjua to state, as he did, in his letter dated 28 June 1990 that they would be in a position to submit their final bid only on 17 July 1990. The lack of a definite offer on the part of respondents could not possibly serve as the basis of their claim that the sale of the Phimco shares in their favor was perfected, for one essential element of a contract of sale was obviously wanting the price certain in money or its equivalent. The price must be certain, otherwise there is no true consent between the parties.[44] There can be no sale without a price.[45] Quite recently, this Court reiterated the long-standing doctrine that the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element before a valid and binding contract of sale can exist since the agreement on the manner of payment goes into the price such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price.[46]

GR No. 126376

2003-11-20

SPS. BERNARDO BUENAVENTURA AND CONSOLACION JOAQUIN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

It is not the act of payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale. Payment of the price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Payment of the price goes into the performance of the contract. Failure to pay the consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing valid contract while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract.[15]

	GR No. 175483 2015-10-14	VALENTINA S. CLEMENTE v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
Article 1471 of the Civil Code provides that "if the price is simulated, the sale is void." Where a deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void for lack of consideration.[63] Thus, although the contracts state that the purchase price of P250,000.00 and P60,000.00 were paid by petitioner to Adela for the Properties, the evidence shows that the contrary is true, because no money changed hands. Apart from her testimony, petitioner did not present proof that she paid for the Properties.
	GR No. 196577 2013-02-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BARBARA SAMPAGA POBLETE CARPIO, J.
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court specifically provides that only questions of law may be raised, subject to exceptional circumstances[14] which are not present in this case. Hence, factual findings of the trial court, especially if affirmed by the CA, are binding on us.[15] In this case, both the RTC and the CA found that the signatures of Poblete and her deceased husband in the Deed dated 11 August 2000 were forged by Maniego. In addition, the evidence is preponderant that Maniego did not pay the consideration for the sale. Since the issue on the genuineness of the Deed dated 11 August 2000 is essentially a question of fact, we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh the evidence again.[16]
	GR No. 196577 2013-02-25	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. BARBARA SAMPAGA POBLETE CARPIO, J.
It is a well-entrenched rule, as aptly applied by the CA, that a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no title.[17] Moreover, where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is void ab initio for lack of consideration.[18] Since the Deed dated 11 August 2000 is void, the corresponding TCT No. T-20151 issued pursuant to the same deed is likewise void. In Yu Bun Guan v. Ong,[19] the Court ruled that there was no legal basis for the issuance of the certificate of title and the CA correctly cancelled the same when the deed of absolute sale was completely simulated, void and without effect. In Ereña v. Querrer-Kauffman,[20] the Court held that when the instrument presented for registration is forged, even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the mortgagee acquire any right or title to the property. In such a case, the mortgagee under the forged instrument is not a mortgagee protected by law.[21]
	GR No. 165748 2011-09-14	HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA MENDOZA, J.
It is well-settled in a long line of cases that where a deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void for lack of consideration.[28] Thus, although the contract states that the purchase price of ?2,000.00 was paid by Policronio to Alfonso for the subject properties, it has been proven that such was never in fact paid as there was no money involved. It must, therefore, follow that the Deed of Sale is void for lack of consideration.
	GR No. 175021 2011-06-15	REPUBLIC v. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The respondent was able to establish that the LBP check was not received by her or by her authorized personnel. The PNP's own records show that it was claimed and signed for by Cruz, who is openly known as being connected to Highland Enterprises, another contractor. Hence, absent any showing that the respondent agreed to the payment of the contract price to another person, or that she authorized Cruz to claim the check on her behalf, the payment, to be effective must be made to her. [77]
	GR No. 177710 2009-10-12	SPS. RAMON LEQUIN AND VIRGINIA LEQUIN v. SPS. RAYMUNDO VIZCONDE AND SALOME LEQUIN VIZCONDE VELASCO JR., J.
There can be no doubt that the contract of sale or Kasulatan lacked the essential element of consideration. It is a well-entrenched rule that where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration.[18] Moreover, Art. 1471 of the Civil Code, which provides that "if the price is simulated, the sale is void," also applies to the instant case, since the price purportedly paid as indicated in the contract of sale was simulated for no payment was actually made.[19]
	GR No. 175118 2008-07-21	SOLIDSTATE MULTI-PRODUCTS CORPORATION v. SPS. ERLINDA CATIENZA-VILLAVERDE AND VICTOR VILLAVERDE TINGA, J,
The evidence clearly shows that while respondents acknowledged receipt of the amount of P96,000.00 in the Deed of Absolute Sale, such amount was not actually paid to them by petitioner. A contract of sale is void and produces no effect whatsoever where the price, which appears thereon as paid, has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor.[18]
	GR NO. 172446 2007-10-10	ALEXANDER “ALEX” MACASAET v. R. TRANSPORT CORPORATION TINGA, J.
Applying these legal precepts to the case at bar, we hold that respondent has the right to rescind or cancel the deed of sale in view of petitioner's failure to pay the stipulated consideration. Montecillo v. Reynes,[27] cited by the appellate court, is particularly instructive in distinguishing the legal effects of "failure to pay consideration" and "lack of consideration:"
	GR NO. 131260 2006-12-06	SANTOS VENTURA HOCORMA FOUNDATION v. RICHARD V. FUNK CORONA, J.
The next two issues raised by petitioner (whether the SPA was approved by petitioner's Board of Trustees and the reasonableness of the attorney's fees) are questions of fact which we are not at liberty to review. In a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised. The Supreme Court is not the proper venue to consider factual issues as it is not a trier of facts.[19]
	GR NO. 153198 2006-07-11	CRISANTA B. BONIFACIO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
Besides, evidentiary matters or matters of fact raised in the court below are not proper in petitions for certiorari.[12] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Supreme Court[13] which is not a trier of facts.[14]
	GR NO. 158149 2006-02-09	BOSTON BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. PERLA P. MANALO CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is not enough for the parties to agree on the price of the property. The parties must also agree on the manner of payment of the price of the property to give rise to a binding and enforceable contract of sale or contract to sell. This is so because the agreement as to the manner of payment goes into the price, such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price.[58]
	GR NO. 153514 2005-06-08	SPS. LAZARO M. ZULUETA AND PERLA SUCAYAN-ZULUETA v. JOSE WONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
There is merit in the respondents' contention that, as held by the Court in Montecillo v. Reynes,[26] failure to pay the consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing contract, while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract. Where the deed of sale states that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration. The respondents are also correct in asserting that their first complaint stated causes of action showing the nullity of the sale, and for reconveyance and damages, and that the RTC erred in dismissing the case. As plaintiffs therein, the respondents alleged that there was no price or consideration for the sale and in fact had not received any consideration for the said sale, thereby implying that the price of P5,000.00 stated in the deed was simulated or fictitious. However, the respondents allowed the trial court's order of dismissal to become final and executory upon their failure to appeal the order within the period therefor. As a general proposition, the operation of a judgment or order on the merits of the case as res judicata is not affected by a mere right of appeal where the appeal has not been taken or by an appeal which has never been perfected.[27]
	GR NO. 157146 2005-04-29	LAGUNA AUTOPARTS MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF SECRETARY CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petitioner can raise only questions of law the Supreme Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts.[17] Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[18] This is particularly true where the CA affirms such findings of fact. In this case, the CA affirmed the finding of the Secretary of Labor and Employment that the respondent union is a legitimate labor organization.
	GR No. 128120 2004-10-20	SWEDISH MATCH v. CA TINGA, J,
Litonjua repeatedly stressed in his letters that they would not be able to submit their final bid by 30 June 1990.[43] With indubitable inconsistency, respondents later claimed that for all intents and purposes, the US$36 million was their final bid. If this were so, it would be inane for Litonjua to state, as he did, in his letter dated 28 June 1990 that they would be in a position to submit their final bid only on 17 July 1990. The lack of a definite offer on the part of respondents could not possibly serve as the basis of their claim that the sale of the Phimco shares in their favor was perfected, for one essential element of a contract of sale was obviously wanting the price certain in money or its equivalent. The price must be certain, otherwise there is no true consent between the parties.[44] There can be no sale without a price.[45] Quite recently, this Court reiterated the long-standing doctrine that the manner of payment of the purchase price is an essential element before a valid and binding contract of sale can exist since the agreement on the manner of payment goes into the price such that a disagreement on the manner of payment is tantamount to a failure to agree on the price.[46]
	GR No. 126376 2003-11-20	SPS. BERNARDO BUENAVENTURA AND CONSOLACION JOAQUIN v. CA CARPIO, J.
It is not the act of payment of price that determines the validity of a contract of sale. Payment of the price has nothing to do with the perfection of the contract. Payment of the price goes into the performance of the contract. Failure to pay the consideration is different from lack of consideration. The former results in a right to demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing valid contract while the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract.[15]

RIDO MONTECILLO v. IGNACIA REYNES