G.R. No. L-55999 August 24, 1984
SPOUSES SALVACION SERRANO LADANGA and AGUSTIN S. LADANGA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and BERNARDO S. ASENETA, as Guardian of the Incompetent CLEMENCIA A. ASENETA, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a deed of sale executed on April 6, 1974, wherein Clemencia A. Aseneta, then about 78 years old, purportedly sold a parcel of land in Paco, Manila, to her niece, Salvacion Serrano Ladanga, for P26,000. This was one of nine deeds of sale Clemencia signed on the same date in favor of Salvacion, covering properties with a total stated price of P92,200. Bernardo S. Aseneta, Clemencia’s legally adopted son and her court-appointed guardian, filed an action for reconveyance, accounting of rentals, and damages, alleging the sale was void due to non-payment of the price. Clemencia herself testified that she never received “even one centavo” of the purported P26,000 consideration, a statement corroborated by her long-time companion and the notary public who attested that no money was handed over during the signing. The trial court and the Court of Appeals declared the sale void and ordered the petitioners to account for rentals and pay damages.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the contract of sale over the Paco property is valid despite the alleged non-payment of the purchase price.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, declaring the sale void. The legal logic is anchored on the essential nature of a contract of sale under the Civil Code. A contract of sale is a consensual contract perfected by mere consent, but it is void and produces no effect if the price, which appears therein as paid, has in fact never been paid by the purchaser to the vendor. The Court held that where the vendor herself credibly testifies to the non-payment, the burden of evidence shifts to the vendee to prove payment. The petitioners failed to discharge this burden. Clemencia’s direct testimony, supported by the notary’s account, conclusively established the fictitious nature of the transaction. The sale, being without any true consideration, is inexistent and cannot be considered consummated. The Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments regarding presumptions of regularity and adequacy of price, as these presumptions were conclusively overturned by the clear evidence of non-payment. However, the award of moral and exemplary damages was deleted, as Clemencia’s own signature contributed to her predicament, and such damages are not recoverable under the circumstances defined by the Civil Code. The Court also upheld Bernardo’s legal capacity to file the suit as Clemencia’s adopted son and guardian, and noted Clemencia’s tacit approval through her testimony.