GR L 2277; (December, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2277. December 29, 1950.
MONICO CONCEPCION, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PACIENCIA STA. ANA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Monico Concepcion, the only surviving legitimate brother of the deceased Perpetua Concepcion, filed an action to annul the sale of three parcels of land made by Perpetua to Paciencia Sta. Ana. The complaint alleged that the sale, executed for a false and fictitious consideration, was made in connivance with the defendant and with intent to defraud the plaintiff of his inheritance, as Perpetua died without issue or a will. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, arguing that the deceased, as owner, had the right to dispose of her properties. The Court of First Instance of Manila granted the motion, ruling that the plaintiff, not being a party to the deed of sale, had no right of action under Article 1302 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff, as the sole heir of the deceased vendor, has the legal capacity or right to institute an action to annul the contract of sale executed by his predecessor.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. First, it held that a contract with a false consideration is not null and void per se or non-existent (contrato inexistente), but is merely voidable (annullable) under Article 1276 of the Civil Code, subject to an action for annulment. Second, it ruled that an action to annul a contract may only be brought by a party principally or subsidiarily bound thereby or by their heirs, but only if rights or obligations arising from the contract have been transmitted to such heirs. Here, the deceased voluntarily conveyed her properties, and as she had no forced heir (the plaintiff being a voluntary heir), she was free to dispose of her properties absolutely. No right arising from the contract was transmitted to the plaintiff. Consequently, he had no legal standing to annul the sale. The Court distinguished that a forced heir, whose legitime is prejudiced, may have an action for rescission under Article 1291, but the plaintiff, not being a forced heir, had no such right.
AI Generated by Armztrong.