CONCHITA LIGUEZ, petitioner,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MARIA NGO VDA. DE LOPEZ, ET
AL., respondents.

SC: CA erred in applying to the present case the pari delicto rule. First,
because it cannot be said that both parties here had equal guilt when we
consider that as against Lopez,an adult, & Liguez minor, 16 years of age,
when the donation was made.

FACTS:

Liguez acceptance in the deed of donation did not necessarily imply

knowledge of conditions and terms not set forth therein. These facts are
more suggestive of seduction than of immoral bargaining on the part of
appellant. It must not be forgotten that illegality is not presumed, but must
be duly and adequately proved.

Petitioner Liguez filed a complaint against the widow and heirs of the late
Salvador P. Lopez to recover a parcel of 51.84 hectares of land, situated in
barrio Bogac-Linot, Davao.
Liguez averred to be its legal owner, pursuant to a deed of donation of said
land, executed in her favor by the late owner, Salvador P. Lopez, on 18
May 1943.

Conchita Liguez declared entitled to so much of the donated property as

may be found, upon proper liquidation, not to prejudice the share of the
widow Maria Ngo in the conjugal partnership with Salvador P. Lopez or the
legitimes of the forced heirs of the latter.

Defendants interposed was that donation was null and void for having
an illicit cause or consideration, which was the Liguezs entering into
marital relations with Lopez, a married man.
CA: held that the deed of donation was inoperative, and null and void
(1)

because the Lopez had no right to donate conjugal property to the Liguez; and

(2)

because the donation was tainted with illegal cause or consideration

CONTENTION of Liguez: Donation was a contract of PURE
BENEFECIENCE, whose consideration is the LIBERALITY of the donor.
Although the motive of the contract is illicit which is desire of Lopez to have
sex with her, it is different from the CAUSE which is the Liberality.
ISSUE: WON the Deed Of Donation was VOID due to an
illegal/illicit/immoral cause?
HELD:
YES. The donation was null and void. It was not a contract of Pure
Beneficence wherein Lopez was not moved by the desire to benefit Liguez,
but also to secure her cohabiting with him, so that he could gratify
his sexual impulses. Actually, therefore, the donation was an onerous
transaction upon an illicit cause.
A contract that is conditioned upon the attainment of an immoral motive
should be considered void, for motive maybe regarded as cause when it
pre-determines the purposes of the contract.
Here, Lopez would not have conveyed the property had he known that
Liguez would refuse to cohabit with him; so that the cohabitation was an
implied condition to the donation, and being unlawful, necessarily tainted
the donation itself.
HOWEVER,

RAFAEL G. SUNTAY, substituted by his heirs, namely: ROSARIO, RAFAEL, JR.,

APOLINARIO, RAYMUND, MARIA VICTORIA, MARIA ROSARIO and MARIA LOURDES, all
surnamed SUNTAY, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FEDERICO C. SUNTAY, respondents.
FACTS:
Resp. Federico Suntay was the registered owner of a parcel of land of
5,118 sqm situated in Sto. Nio, Hagonoy, Bulacan.
On the land may be found: a rice mill, a warehouse, and other
improvements.
A rice miller, Federico, in a letter, applied as a miller-contractor of National
Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC).
His application, although prepared by his nephew-lawyer, petitioner Rafael
Suntay, was disapproved, obviously because at that time he was tied up
with several unpaid loans.

He had thought of allowing Rafael to make the application for him. Rafael
prepared an absolute deed of sale whereby Federico, for and in
consideration of P20k conveyed to Rafael said parcel of land.
Said deed was notarized as Document No. 57. Less than 3 months after
this conveyance, a counter-sale was prepared and signed by Rafael who
also caused its delivery to Federico.
Through this counter conveyance, the same parcel of land was sold by
Rafael back to Federico for the same consideration of P20k.

The second deed appeared not the said deed of sale on the notary but a
certain "real estate mortgage on a parcel of land with TCT No. 16157 to
secure a loan of P3,500.00 in favor of the Hagonoy Rural Bank.

The value of the property sold was grossly INADEQUATE for a consideration of just
P20k.

Federico remained in possession of said property while under in Rafaels name, and
Rafael didnt even include this property in his statement of assets & liabilities.

Nowhere same notarial register could be found any entry pertaining to

Rafael's deed of sale.

The deed of sale executed by Federico in favor of his now deceased

nephew, Rafael, is absolutely simulated and fictitious and, hence, null
and void, said parties having entered into a sale transaction to which they
did not intend to be legally bound. As no property was validly conveyed
under the deed, the second deed of sale executed by the late Rafael in
favor of his uncle should be considered ineffective and unavailing.

Even Federico himself alleged in his Complaint that, when Rafael

delivered the second deed to him, it was neither dated nor notarized.
On July 1970, Federico filed a complaint for reconveyance against
Rafael because Rafael failed and refused to reconvey it back to him w/o
justifiable reason.

Heirs of Rafel to reconvey the propert to Federico Suntay.

Federicos CONTENTION:
1

The deed of sale was a simulated contract.

He remained in possession of the property

Rafael never exercised a single act of ownership.

Rafael never paid and he never demanded the payment of P20k

He paid the taxes on the property.

Rafaels CONTENTION:

It was a genuine contract of sale also as dacion en pago for his unpaid attys fees.

Federico is estopped in claiming a simulated contract due to his judicial admission of

the sale.

MARIA GERVACIO BLAS, MANUEL GERVACIO BLAS, LEONCIO GERVACIO BLAS and
LODA GERVACIO BLAS, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
ROSALINA SANTOS, in her capacity as Special Administratrix of the Estate of the
deceased MAXIMA SANTOS VDA. DE BLAS, in Sp. Proc. No. 2524, Court of First Instance
of Rizal, defendants-appellants. MARTA GERVACIO BLAS and DR. JOSE
CHIVI, defendants-appellants.
FACTS:
Simeon Blas married Marta Cruz sometime before 1898.
They had 3 children, only one of whom, Eulalio, left children, namely, Maria Gervacio Blas, one
of the plaintiffs, Marta Gervacio Blas, one of the defendants, and Lazaro Gervacio Blas.
Lazaro died in 1950, and is survived by 3 children who are plaintiffs herein, namely, Manuel
Gervacio Blas, Leoncio Gervacio Blas and Loida Gervacio Blas.

ISSUE: WON the deed of sale executed by Federico in favor of Rafael

was simulated?

Marta Cruz died in 1898, and the following year, Simeon Blas re-married with Maxima Santos.
At the time of this second marriage, no liquidation of the properties required by Simeon
Blas and Marta Cruz was made. Therefore the conjugal property of Simeon and Marta
became part in the conjugal property of Simeon and Maxima.

HELD:

On Dec 1936, Simeon Blas executed:

YES. The contract of sale was a SIMULATION. It being executed as a

mere accommodation agreement only so that Federico be granted in his
application at NARIC.
Factors considered by SC in declaring it a simulated contract:
1

The 2 deeds were executed CLOSELY one after the other, both involving the transfer
and re-transfer of same property at same price of P20k

Parties are closely related (uncle-nephew trust) Fraud is generally accompanied by

TRUST.

LAST WILL and TESTAMENT

- of conjugal property will belong to Maxima which amounted to P678k

Maxima Santos also executed:

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT Exh. A

- that she PROMISES to give to the heirs and legatees or the beneficiaries named in the will
of Simeon Blas& that she can select or choose any of them, to whom she will give depending
upon the respect, service and treatment accorded to her.

HELD: NO.

Maxima is to convey in her testament, upon her death, of the conjugal properties she would
receive as her share.
After the death of Maxima, a last will and testament of her estate includes a total of 1,045
hectares of properties wherein it only conferred 80 hectares to Marta Gervacio, 150 sqm to
Angelina Blas and P300 to Leony Blas. And these are far beyond of 1,045 hectares.

The COMPROMISE AGREEMENT was VALID. There is NO future inheritance that is

involved. The consideration in the said contract is well-defined and are existing
properties, and also determinable during the execution of contract.

Thus, a SUIT by Martas heirs for the declaration of ownership of properties that were
indentified in the Compromise Agreement.
CONTENTION Maximas heirs:
1
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT is VOID since it lacks consideration since it involves a
FUTURE INHERITANCE.
2

Their complaint already PRESCRIBED since NO action to recover was instituted in

the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Simeon.

CONTENTION of Martas heirs:

1

Their rights arise from the document w/c constitutes TRUST AGREEMENT and a
contract in the nature of a COMPROMISE AGREEMENT.

They didnt institute an action to recover in the settlement of Simeon exactly because of
Maximas promise to convey.

ISSUE: WON the Compromise Agreement was VOID due to lack of consideration/cause
which was FUTURE INHERITANCE?

SC : Administratrix of estate of Maxima Santos, is ordered to convey and deliver 1/2 of the
properties adjudicated to Maxima Santos as her share in the conjugal properties to the heirs
and the legatees of her husband Simeon Blas. Considering that all said heirs and legatees,
designated in the will of Simeon Blas as the persons for whose benefit Exhibit "A"(Compromise
Agrrement) had been executed, have not appeared in these proceedings, the record is hereby
remanded to the court below, with instructions that, after the conveyance of the properties
hereinabove ordered had been effected, the said heirs and legatees (of Simeon Blas) file
adversary pleadings to determine the participation of each and every one of them in said
properties.