Concepcion v. Sta Ana

G.R. No.
L-2277 December 29, 1950
MONICO CONCEPCION, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PACIENCIA STA. ANA, defendant-appellee.
FERIA, J.:
FACTS:
An action was instituted by Monico Concepcion vs. Paciencia Sta. Ana to annul the sale made by the late Perpetua Concepcion, sister
of the plaintiff, of three parcels of land with the improvements thereon to the defendant.
Monico (Plaintiff): alleged that he is the only surviving legitimate brother of Perpetua Concepcion, who died without issue and
without leaving any will; that in her life time said Perpetua Concepcion, in connivance with the defendant and with intent to defraud
the plaintiff, sold and conveyed three parcels of land for a false and fictitious consideration to the defendant, and that the defendant
has been in possession of the properties sold since the death of Perpetua Concepcion, thereby causing damages to the plaintiff in the
amount of not less than two hundred (P200) pesos.
Paciencia (Defendant): filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it does not state a cause of action, because the
deceased being the owner of the properties sold had the right to enjoy and dispose of them without further limitation than those
established by law.
The Court of First Instance of Manila: granted the motion to dismiss on the ground that "the plaintiff is not a party to the deed of
sale executed by Perpetua Concepcion in favor of the defendant. Even in the assumption that the consideration of the contract is
fictitious, the plaintiff has no right of action against the defendant.
ISSUE: Whether the deceased Perpetua Concepcion has transmitted to the plaintiff any right arising from the contract under
consideration in order that he can bring an action to annul the sale voluntarily made by her to the defendant with a false consideration.
RULING: NO.
An action to annul a contract entered into with all the requisites mentioned in article 1261 whenever they are tainted with the vice
which invalidate them in accordance with law, may be brought, not only by any person principally bound or who made them, but also
by his heir to whom the right and obligation arising from the contract are transmitted. Hence if no such rights, actions or obligations
have been transmitted to the heir, the latter can not bring an action to annul the contract in representation of the contracting party who
made it. In Irlanda vs. Pitargue we held that "the testamentary or legal heir continues in law as the juridical personality of his
predecessor in interest, who transmit to him from the moment of his death such of his rights, actions and obligations as are not
extinguished thereby."
In this case, the late Perpetua Concepcion has not transmitted to the plaintiff any right arising from the contract of conveyance or sale
of her lands to the defendant, and therefore the plaintiff cannot file an action to annul such contract as representative of the deceased.
As the deceased had no forced heir, she was free to dispose of all her properties as absolute owner thereof, without further limitation
than those established by law, and the right to dispose of a thing involves the right to give or to convey it to another without any
consideration. The only limitation established by law on her right to convey said properties to the defendant without any consideration
is, that she could not dispose of or transfer her property to another in fraud of her creditors.
Even a forced heir of the deceased Perpetua Concepcion would have no right to institute as representative of the decedent, an action of
nullity of a contract made by the decedent to defraud his creditors, because such a contract being considered illicit under article 1306
of the Civil Code, Perpetua Concepcion herself had no right of action to annul it and recover the properties she had conveyed to the
defendant. But the forced heir could in such case bring an action to rescind the contract under article 1291 (3) of the Civil Code.
Manresa in his comments on articles 1305 and 1306 of the Civil Code, says: "As to heirs, it is interesting that the judgment of May 6,
1902, of the Supreme Court of Spain which denied a forced heir the right to institute an action to annul contracts considered illicit, for
having been entered into by his predecessor in interest for the purpose of depriving the forced heir of his legitime. The judgment
purported to hold that the proper action would have been an action to rescind in conformity with what we indicated in commenting
on article 1291, and declared that 'even forced heirs who accept an inheritance under the benefit of inventory are within the rule 2 of
article 1806, that denies to the guilty party the right to recover anything he may have given, or to enforce the performance of any
undertaking in his favor, when the other party has nothing to do with the illicit consideration; a doctrine laid down in the judgment of
July 4, 1896.'"
The reason why a forced heir has the right to institute an action of rescission is that the right to the legitime is similar to a credit of a
creditor. Manresa says: "The rights of a forced heir to the legitime are undoubtedly similar to a credit of a creditor in so far as
the rights to the legitime may be defeated by fraudulent contracts, and are superior to the will of those bound to respect them.
In its judgment of October 28, 1897, the Supreme Court of Spain held that the forced heirs instituted as such by their father to the
latter's testament have the undeniable right to institute an action to annul contracts entered into by the father to their prejudice. As it is
seen the action is called action of nullity, but it is rather an action of rescission taking into account the purpose for which it is instituted
and the confusion of ideas that has prevailed in this matter.
Therefore, as the plaintiff in the present case, not being a forced heir of the late Perpetua Concepcion, can not institute an action to
annul under article 1300 or to rescind under article 1291 (3) of the Civil Code the contract entered into by the deceased with the
defendant.

Concepcion v. Sta Ana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concepcion v. Sta Ana

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concepcion v. Sta Ana

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

L-2277 December 29, 1950

MONICO CONCEPCION, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PACIENCIA STA. ANA, defendant-appellee.

You might also like