G.R. No. L-18210 December 29, 1966
Laurentio Armentia, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Erlinda Patriarca, Florencia Someciera, Juliana Armentia, Jose Someciera and Sofronio Flores in his capacity as The Register of Deeds for the Province of Iloilo, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff Laurentio Armentia, Juliana Armentia, and Marta Armentia were siblings of full blood. Jose Someciera was the acknowledged natural son of their deceased mother. Defendant Florencia Someciera is Jose’s daughter. Defendant Erlinda Patriarca is a granddaughter of Juliana Armentia. Marta Armentia was married to Gregorio Bueno, who died in 1942.
On July 22, 1955, by a notarial document (Annex A of the complaint), Marta Armentia: (1) adjudicated to herself a parcel of land (Lot 5482, Pototan cadastre, Iloilo) with improvements, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 21328, which she inherited from her deceased husband, pursuant to Rule 74, Section 1 of the 1940 Rules of Court; and (2) for a consideration of P99.00, sold the same property to Erlinda Patriarca (then 13 years old) and Florencia Someciera (then 20 years old). The document was recorded in the Registry of Deeds on the same date, resulting in the cancellation of TCT No. 21328 and the issuance of TCT No. 18797 in the names of Erlinda and Florencia.
Marta Armentia died intestate and without forced heirs on May 28, 1960.
On September 17, 1960, Laurentio Armentia filed a complaint (later amended and reamended) against the defendants. He alleged that the sale was null and void as simulated and fictitious, or voidable because the vendees were minors who could not give consent. He also claimed the sale was fraudulently executed, that Marta remained in possession, paid taxes, and repaired the house after the sale, and that the consideration was grossly inadequate. He prayed for the declaration of the sale as inexistent or annulled, for himself and Juliana Armentia to be declared owners as Marta’s heirs, for the cancellation of TCT No. 18797 and issuance of a new title in their names, and for partition or sale of the property and a sewing machine also left by Marta.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of cause of action and prescription. The lower court dismissed the case on November 21, 1960, holding that the action to annul had prescribed. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied on December 17, 1960, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff-appellant, Laurentio Armentia, as a brother and intestate heir (but not a forced heir) of the deceased vendor Marta Armentia, has a cause of action to annul the contract of sale executed by Marta during her lifetime.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
1. Nature of the Sale: The plaintiff’s allegations, even if hypothetically admitted, characterize the sale as merely voidable, not void. The vendees’ minority made the contract annullable by them, not void. Inadequacy of consideration does not equate to total want of consideration. The post-sale acts of Marta (possession, tax payment, repairs) did not render the sale void ab initio. The essence of the complaint was fraud, which renders a contract voidable.
2. Plaintiff’s Lack of Cause of Action: Under Article 1397 of the Civil Code, an action for annulment may be instituted only by those obliged principally or subsidiarily by the contract. Under Article 1311, contracts take effect only between parties, their assigns, and heirs, provided the rights and obligations are transmissible. The plaintiff, as a brother and not a forced heir of Marta, was not a party to the contract, nor was he principally or subsidiarily obliged under it. Marta, having no forced heirs (ascendants or descendants), was free to dispose of her property. She transmitted no rights from the contract to the plaintiff; on the contrary, she voluntarily disposed of the property. No creditors were defrauded, and no legitimes were impaired. Therefore, the plaintiff had no legal standing to annul the sale.
The Court cited the analogous case of Concepcion vs. Sta. Ana (87 Phil. 787), which held that an heir who did not receive any transmitted right arising from the contested contract cannot bring an action to annul it. Since Marta Armentia did not transmit any right from the sale to Laurentio, he could not file the action as her representative.
Given this primary ruling on lack of cause of action, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the issue of prescription. The order of dismissal was affirmed.