GR 138842; (October, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138842; October 18, 2000
NATIVIDAD P. NAZARENO, MAXIMINO P. NAZARENO, JR., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ESTATE OF MAXIMINO A. NAZARENO, SR., ROMEO P. NAZARENO and ELIZA NAZARENO, respondents.
FACTS
Maximino Nazareno, Sr. and Aurea Poblete were spouses who acquired properties during their marriage. After their deaths, their son Romeo, as administrator of Maximino Sr.’s estate, discovered deeds of sale wherein Maximino Sr., with Aurea’s consent, purportedly sold six Quezon City lots to their daughter Natividad on January 29, 1970, for ₱47,800. The estate, Romeo, and his wife Eliza filed an action for annulment of sale and damages, claiming the sale was simulated and the properties were part of the conjugal estate.
Petitioners Natividad and Maximino Jr. defended the sale as genuine. The trial court declared the sale void, finding no actual payment and that the properties remained in the parents’ possession. It ordered Natividad to reconvey the titles, except for two lots already sold to an innocent purchaser. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the award of damages.
ISSUE
Was the Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 29, 1970, covering the six parcels of land, a valid and enforceable contract?
RULING
No, the sale was void. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the absence of essential elements of a contract of sale and the establishment of an implied trust. First, the Court found the purported sale was not supported by valuable consideration. Natividad failed to prove she paid the ₱47,800 purchase price; her claim of payment in cash was uncorroborated and improbable given her financial situation at the time. The parents’ continued possession, enjoyment, and payment of taxes on the properties after the alleged sale further negated a true transfer of ownership.
Second, the circumstances established an implied trust under Article 1449 of the Civil Code. The conveyance was not a bona fide sale but a gratuitous transfer to Natividad, the only unmarried daughter, to hold the properties in trust for her siblings. Her own admission that she intended to convey some lots to a brother evidenced this fiduciary role. Consequently, the transfer was deemed a donation subject to collation under Article 1061, requiring the properties to be brought into the mass of the estate for proper partition among all compulsory heirs. The sale of two lots to Ros-Alva Marketing Corp. was upheld, as it was an innocent purchaser for value relying on Natividad’s clean title.