Lex Rex Ph

Jocson v. CA Digest

Jocson vs. CA 170 SCRA 333G.R. No. L-55322. February 16, 1989Full Text Link Complete Names of PartiesMOISES JOCSON, petitioner,vs.HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AGUSTINA JOCSON-VASQUEZ, ERNESTO VASQUEZ, respondents. THESIS STATEMENTPetitioner Moises FILED a case to NULLIFY the Documents of Deeds the Sale of properties between his father and his sister, Defendant Agustina, on the grounds that (1) the transaction was based on fraud, (2) grossly inadequate price, (3) properties were conjugal properties and should be registered to petitioner The RELIEFS sought: Properties in question be registered to petitioner since properties were conjugal properties FACTSSynopsis: Moises is questioning the document left by their father which shows the sale of 3 properties, the third property was partitioned into three (Father, Son, Daughter). Moises got 1/3, and the 2/3 was his sister’s share plus the portion she bought from their father. Moises’ grounds are fraud, inadequate price, and conjugal property. 

  • Petitioner Moises and respondent Agustina are the only surviving offsprings of the spouses Emilio Jocson and Alejandra 
  • Alejandra died first intestate, then Emilio died intestate
  • The controversy concerns the validity of three (3) documents executed by Emilio Jocson during his lifetime.
    • These documents conveyed, by sale, to Agustina Jocson-Vasquez what apparently covers almost all of Emilio’s properties, including his one-third (1/3) share in the estate of his wife.
    • Petitioner Moises Jocson assails these documents and prays that they be declared null and void, arguing that the properties be partitioned between him and Agustina
    • Documents, receipts presented by defendants that Emilio sold to Agustina:
      1. 6 parcels of land in Naic, Cavite for P10,000 – Jul 1968
      2. 2 rice mills and camalig in Naic, P5,000 – Jul 1968
      3. Extrajudicial Partition March 1969
        • Emilio (father) and Agustina (daughter), without participation of Moises (son/brother), extrajudicially partitioned the unsettled estate of the mother
        • Divided to three parts
        • Emilio sold his share to Agustina for P8,000
    • Documents were notarized and RD
    • Petitioner assailed to CFI documents were null and void. Allegation:
      • First document: procured by defendants from their father through fraud, deceit, undue pressure and influence. P10,000 was shocking to the conscience
      • Second and third document: Consent was obtained with fraud, deceit, under pressure, misrepresentation and unlawful machinations & trickeries

 Who filed to RTC: MoisesTHE RTC RULED: SUSTAINED CONTENTIONS of PETITIONER, ordered that the properties be registered in the name of herein petitioners and private respondents. Reasons:1) No showing Agustina paid;2) Prices grossly inadequate3) The real intention of the parties were donations designed to exclude Moises Jocson from participating in the estate of his parents.  ***properties are conjugal properties of Emilio Jocson and Alejandra Poblete, because they were registered in the name of “Emilio Jocson, married to Alejandra Poblete” and ordered that the properties subject matter of all the documents be registered in the name of herein petitioners and private respondents. Who filed to CA: AgustinaThe COURT OF APPEALS ruled: Reversed RTC Ruling Reasons:(1) Complaint on annulment due to fraud IS NOW BARRED by PRESCRIPTION (4 years within discovery of fraud)(2) Emilio actually intended the sale the be binding against him(3) Partition between father and daughter (2/3 property) is IN ACCORDANCE WITH Article 996 of NCC on intestate succession, and 1/3 of appellee’s has not been prejudiced  Who filed to SC: Moises Jocscon


 ISSUE 1 and 2: Is the suit on annulment based on fraud, not on nullity (fictitious/against law, customers,morals), and therefore prescribed?RULING/RATIO 1: No. • Petitioner’s ground is not fraud, but that the Deeds of Conveyance are without consideration and amounts were simulated. • According to Article 1352 of CC, simulated priced contracts are VOID, and actions DO NOT PRESCRIBE (Art 1410) Court: However, Court opines that petitioner has not sufficiently proven that questioned documents are without consideration.1) Evidence show Agustina engages in buy and sell of palay 2) The price was not so shockingly inadequate considering the filial love of father to daughter• Further, gross inadequacy of price does not affect contract of sale3.) Any discussion improbability of sale father-daughter is purely speculative 


 ISSUE 3: The properties subject matter herein are CONJUGAL PROPERTIESRULING/RATIO 2: No. Petitioner Moises failed to sufficiently prove (1) Article 160 CC: “All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife.”[Cobb-Perez vs. Hon. Gregorio Lantin, Ponce de Leon vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation] Nomenclature in the nature “married to” does not AUTOMATICALLY mean conjugal. It could only mean as a designation, not vesting of ownership. However, Moises failed to prove that the DISPUTED PROPERTIES were ACQUIRED DURING the MARRIAGE of his father and mother.  • registered in the name of “Emilio Jocson, married to Alejandra Poblete” is no proof that the properties were acquired during the spouses’ coverture • Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts. • It may that Emilio acquired these while he was still bachelor and registered only after his marriage to Alejandra Certificate of titles show that properties were exclusively Emilio Jocson’s, the registered owner. “married to’ preceding “Alejandra Poblete’ are merely DESCRIPTIVE OF THE CIVIL STATUS of Emilio  Ponente: MEDIALDEASUPREME COURT RULING: Petition dismissed. CA decision affirmed.

Other Content You May Be Interested In:

Briones vs. CA

Remedial Law: Plaintiff not expected to comply with the stipulation of venue on the agreement if he sails the validity of the latter. Compliance therewith

Read More »

Bambalan vs. Maramba Digest

Facts Bambalan signed a document executing a transfer of land of ownership to Maramba. After some time, Bambalan then asserted that the transfer was invalid

Read More »
en_USEnglish