MILAGROS DE BELEN VDA. DE CABALU, MELITON CABALU, SPS.

ANGELA CABALU and RODOLFO TALAVERA, and PATRICIO ABUS, Petitioners, vs. SPS. RENATO DOLORES TABU and LAXAMANA, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tarlac City, Branch II, Respondents. Mendoza J Sept 24, 2012 FACTS: Property in question is 9000 sq m, a portion of property of Faustina Maslum with a total area of 140,211 sq m. Faustina died without children. She left a holographic will assigning her property to her nephews and nieces. This will was not however probated Benjamin Laxamana, father of Domingo Laxamana, was an heir. He died in 1960 in 1975 Domingo allegedly executed a Deed of Sale of Undivided parcel of land (9,000 sq m)in favour of Laureano Cabalu. In 1994, the forced and legitimate heirs of Faustina executed a deed of extra judicial succession with partition to give effect to the will. The deed imparted the 9,000 to Domingo. Domingo sold half of his land to Eleazar Tabamo and half was registered under his name under TCT 281353 1996 domingo died 2 months after, domingo purportedly executed a deed of absolute sale of TCT 281353 to Renato Tabu, who together with his wife, Dolores Laxamana divided the lit into two The Laxamanas, Heirs of Domingo, filed an unlawful detainer action against Cabalu and all claiming rights under them. They claim that the defendants were merely allowed to occupy the subject lot by their late father but refused to vacate The case was decided in favour of Domingos heirs 2002, Cabalus (petitioners) filed a case for declaration of nullity of deed of absolute sale, joint affidavit of nullity of transfert of TCTs. Quieting of title, reconveyance, application for restraining order, injunction and damages against respondent spouses petitioners claimed that they were the lawful owners of the subject property because it was sold to their father, Laureano Cabalu, by Domingo in 1975 Respondents: void as in 1975, Domingo was not yet owner and only became such in 1994. Domingo was also of unsound mind then. RTC: dismissed the complaint. Deed of absolute sale null and void for lack of capacity to sell of domingo Likewise, sale to Tabu is ineffective as Domingo was dead then Both appealed to CA. according to petitioner, Domingo was a co-owner of property left by Benjamin and could therefore dispose of the portion he owned. According to respondents, the sale was spurious and simulated as the signature, PTR and document number of the notary public were different from the notarized docs. Also there was no consent as Domingo was of unsound mind then CA: modified: sale of Domingo to Cabalu void. Although he was of sound mind, the deed was simulated. Sale to Tabu valid. ISSUE: WON sale to Cabalu valid (no) WON sale to tabu valid (no) 1. Petitioners invoke the presumption of validity of the deed. However, such cannot prevail over the facts proven. Deed in favour of Cabalu was simulated

Even on the assumption that the 1995 deed was not simulated, the sale still cannot be valid as at that time Domingo was not yet the owner of the property. Even if his father died in 1960, he was not the only heir as his mother died in 1980 Besides, under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "No contract may be entered into upon future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law." Paragraph 2 of Article 1347, characterizes a contract entered into upon future inheritance as void. The law applies when the following requisites concur: (1) the succession has not yet been opened; (2) the object of the contract forms part of the inheritance; and (3) the promissor has, with respect to the object, an expectancy of a right which is purely hereditary in nature Domingo became the owner of the said property only on August 1, 1994, the time of execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Succession with Partition by the heirs of Faustina, when the 9,000 square meter lot was adjudicated to him. The CA, therefore, did not err in declaring the March 5, 1975 Deed of Sale null and void. 2. Regarding the deed of sale covering the remaining 4,500 square meters of the subject property executed in favor of Renato Tabu, it is evidently null and void. The document itself, the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated October 8, 1996, readily shows that it was executed on August 4, 1996 more than two months after the death of Domingo. Contracting parties must be juristic entities at the time of the consummation of the contract. Stated otherwise, to form a valid and legal agreement it is necessary that there be a party capable of contracting and a party capable of being contracted with. HELD: partially granted Deed in favour of Cabalu is void Deed in favour of Tabu is void