G.R. No. 1318 : April 12, 1904
PRISCA NAVAL, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
On November 14, 1885, Jorge Enriquez, as an heir of his deceased parents Antonio Enriquez and Ciriaca Villanueva, sold his hereditary interest (a tenth part) in their undistributed estates to Victoriano Reyes for 7,000 pesos via a public instrument. The notary certified the vendor received the consideration. On April 15, 1886, Victoriano Reyes sold the same interest to Carmen de la Cavada for the same amount, with the notary similarly certifying receipt of payment. Carmen de la Cavada was the wife of Francisco Enriquez, who was the executor and administrator of the testamentary estate of Antonio Enriquez at the time of both sales.

The plaintiffs, successors of Jorge Enriquez, filed an action seeking to declare the deeds and contracts null and void as to the estate of Antonio Enriquez. They alleged: (1) the contracts were executed without any real consideration, constituting a fraud; and (2) Victoriano Reyes acted merely as an intermediary for Francisco Enriquez, who, as executor, was legally prohibited from acquiring property under his administration.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the contracts of sale were executed without consideration, rendering them void.
2. Whether the sale was void because the executor, Francisco Enriquez, through an intermediary, acquired the hereditary right of an heir, which was property under his administration, in violation of Article 1459(3) of the Civil Code.

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s judgment and dismissed the complaint.

1. On the Issue of Lack of Consideration: The Court held the plaintiffs failed to prove the contracts were without consideration. The notarial deeds themselves expressly recited the receipt of the 7,000-peso consideration, creating a strong presumption of regularity. The testimony of Victoriano Reyes claiming no payment was made was insufficient to overcome this presumption, especially as it was contradicted by the notary and the other defendants. The Court found it improbable that Jorge Enriquez, the notary, and witnesses would conspire to falsify documents to Jorge’s own detriment without any benefit. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo a lack of consideration, the action for annulment had already prescribed. Under Article 1301 of the Civil Code, such an action prescribes in four years from the consummation of the contract. The sales were consummated upon the execution of the public instruments (pursuant to Articles 1462 and 1464 of the Civil Code), which occurred in 1885 and 1886. The complaint was filed only in 1902, well beyond the prescriptive period.

2. On the Issue of the Executor’s Incapacity to Purchase: The Court ruled that Article 1459(3) of the Civil Code, which prohibits guardians, agents, administrators, and executors from acquiring property under their care, was not applicable. The property sold was the hereditary right of Jorge Enriquez, not the specific property of the estate confided to the executor’s administration. Hereditary rights are vested in the heirs and are not part of the estate property delivered to the executor for administration. The prohibition, being of a restrictive nature, must be strictly construed and does not extend to property not expressly under the executor’s care. Therefore, even if Francisco Enriquez were the real purchaser, he was not legally incapacitated from acquiring the hereditary right. Consequently, the question of whether the purchase money belonged to him or his wife became immaterial.

The action was found to be without merit. The other issues raised by the parties were deemed unnecessary to resolve.