FELIX TING HO, JR., MERLA TING HO BRADEN, JUANA TING HO & LYDIA TING HO BELENZO vs. VICENTE TENG
GUI, G.R. No. 130115, July 16, 2008
“x x x.
Coming now to the issue of ownership of the properties
erected on the subject lot, the Court agrees with the finding of the trial
court, as affirmed by the appellate court, that the series of transactions
resorted to by the deceased were simulated in order to preserve the properties
in the hands of the family. The records show that during all the time that
the properties were allegedly sold to the spouses Victoria Cabasal and Gregorio
Fontela in 1958 and the subsequent sale of the same to respondent in 1961, the
petitioners and respondent, along with their parents, remained in possession
and continued to live in said properties.
However, the trial court concluded that:
In fairness to the defendant, although the Deeds of Sale
executed by Felix Ting Ho regarding the improvements in favor of Victoria
Cabasal and Gregorio Fontela and the subsequent transfer of the same by
Gregorio Fontela and Victoria Cabasal to the defendant are all simulated, yet, pursuant
to Article 1471 of the New Civil Code it can be assumed that the intention of
Felix Ting Ho in such transaction was to give and donate the improvements to
his eldest son the defendant Vicente Teng Gui [20]
Its finding was based on Article 1471 of the Civil Code,
which provides that:
Art. 1471. If the price is simulated, the sale is void, but the
act may be shown to have been in reality a donation, or some other act or
contract.[21]
The Court holds that the reliance of the trial court on the
provisions of Article 1471 of the Civil Code to conclude that the simulated
sales were a valid donation to the respondent is misplaced because its finding
was based on a mere assumption when the law requires positive
proof.
The respondent was unable to show, and the records are
bereft of any evidence, that the simulated sales of the properties were
intended by the deceased to be a donation to him. Thus, the Court holds
that the two-storey residential house, two-storey residential building and
sari-sari store form part of the estate of the late spouses Felix Ting Ho and
Leonila Cabasal, entitling the petitioners to a four-fifths (4/5) share
thereof.
X xx.”
[1] Under
Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Art. 1471. If
the price is simulated, the sale is void, but the act may be shown to have been
in reality a donation, or some other act or contract.
[17] This
rule does not apply where the land covered by a patent issued by the Government
had previously been determined in a registration proceeding and adjudicated in
favor of a private individual other than the patentee, which situation is not
present in this case.
