Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

G.R. No.

172919, January 13, 2016


Timoteo Bacalso and Diosdada Bacalso, Petitioners, v. Gregoria B. Acaac, Eutiquia B.
Aguila, Julian Bacus and Evelyn Sychangco, Respondents.

FACTS: Gregoria B. Acaac, Eutiquia B. Aguila and Julian Bacus (Bacus siblings) were the
registered owners of a parcel of land (Lot No. 1809-G-2) that they inherited from their mother
Matea Bacalso (Matea). A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed in favor of their cousin, Timoteo
Bacalso (Timoteo), conveying a portion of the inherited parcel of land designated as Lot No.
1809-G-2-C in the amount of P8,000.00.

However, instead of paying the consideration, Timoteo, together with his sisters Lucena and
Victoria, and some of their cousins filed a complaint to nullify the documents, certificates of title,
reconveyance of real property and damages against the Bacus siblings. They claimed that Lot
No. 1809-G was bought and paid by Matea for and in behalf of her siblings Perpetua, Liberata
and Alejandro, who is the father of Timoteo, making them co-owners of the three-fourths portion
of the said property. In rendering their decisions, both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the
Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conveyances of the portions of Lot No. 1809-G by the Bacus
siblings and ruled that Matea was the sole owner of Lot No. 1809-G.

Later, the Bacus siblings, without the knowledge of Timoteo, sold Lot No. 1809-G-2-C again to
Evelyn Sychangco (Sychangco). On the other hand, Timoteo and Diosdada Bacalso (petitioners)
again filed a complaint to nullify the documents, certificates of title, reconveyance and damages
against the Bacus siblings, but this time theyre claiming ownership by virtue of the executed
Deed of Absolute Sale over Lot No. 1809-G-2-C. But the Bacus siblings denied the contention of
the petitioners and claimed that the first sale of Lot No. 1809-G-2-C in favor of the petitioners
did not push through due to the failure of the petitioners to pay the purchase price. The RTC
declared the first Deed of Absolute Sale executed between the Bacus siblings and the petitioners
void for want of consideration after petitioners failed to pay the price agreed upon, which is
affirmed by the CA when petitioners interposed an appeal with the CA. Furthermore, the
petitioners cannot ask for the rescission of the sale of the disputed property made to Sychangco
as she was a buyer in good faith who has better right over the property.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the executed Deed of Absolute Sale between the Bacus siblings and the
petitioners is void for want of consideration.

HELD: Under the Civil Code, a contract is a meeting of minds, with respect to the other, to give
something or to render some service. Article 1318 provides:

Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:


(1) Consent of the contracting parties
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.

While the petitioners argue that the Deed of Absolute Sale has all the requisites of a valid
contract and contends that such failure to pay the purchase price does not render the sale void
and that there is only non-payment of the consideration within the period agreed upon for
payment, it is not merely a case of failure to pay the purchase price which can only amount to a
breach of obligation with rescission as the proper remedy. What s purported is a contract that
lacks a cause or consideration, which is one of the three essential requisites of a valid contract.
Failure to pay the consideration differs from lack of consideration that it results in a right to
demand the fulfillment or cancellation of the obligation under an existing valid contract, while
the latter prevents the existence of a valid contract. The disputed sale produces no effect and is
considered void ab initio for failure to or want of consideration since the petitioner failed to pay
the consideration stipulated in the Deed of Absolute Sale. Article 1352 of the Civil Code also
explicitly provides that contracts without cause produce no effect whatsoever. There being no
price paid, there is no cause or consideration. Hence, the contract is void as a sale.