INCAPACITY CASE DIGESTS

LAO v GENATO
FACTS:

The sale to Go was illegal and irregular

which was confirmed by the respondent
judg violative of Art. 1409 w/c cannot work
to confirm nor ratify a ficititious contract
nonexistent and void.

Petitioner spouses were promises in a

Mutual Agreement of Promise to sell
between them and private respondent
Sotero Dionisio, Jr., heir and administrator
of the intestate estate of deceased mother
Rosenda Abuton. The promisor bound
himself to sell the subject ppty to
petitioners.

RULING: AMICABLE SETTLEMENT NULL

AND VOID; SALE TO GO NULL AND VOID;
NEW PROCEEDINGS FOR SALE OF PPTY

Respodnnet administrator Sotero DIonisio,

Jr. w/ due notice to all co-heirs filed a
Motion for Authority to sell certain ppties
of the deceased to settle the outstanding
obligations of the estate.

Lot in controversy involves half portion of

2 adjoining parcels of coconut lands at
MIsamis Oriental.

Probate court: authorized administrator to

sell ppties
Respondent admin. Pursuant to said
authorization, sold to his son, Sotero
Dionisio III, a ppty the latter sold the same
to William Go, title was transferred.
Florida Nuqui, filed a Motion for Annulment
of sale for the reasons that subseq
transfer fo title were made in violation of
courts order and that consideration was
grossly inadequate.
Petitioner sps. filed Manifestation in
Intervention of Interest that respondentadminstrator w/o revealing that ppty has
already been sold entered into a Mutual
Agreement of Promise to sell w/ them. The
latter paid earnest money immediately
upon execution of contract.
After several days, respondent Judge
Genato allowed bidding for the ppty
Amicable settlement was agreed upon but
petitioner
spouses
opposed
as
mortgagees.
HELD:
The authorization was made to settle
outstanding obligations of the estate. But,
the sale to his very son for a grossly low
price was indubitable shown to be
ficititious. The consideration was never
accounted for in the probate court

SARSOSA
CUENCO

VDA

DE

BARSOBIA

FACTS:

Entire land was owned previously by a

certain Leocadia Balisado who sold it to
sps Babsobia (deceased) and Epifania
Sarsosa, petitioners.
Epifania Sarsosa sold the land to Ong King
Po and the latter took possession of ppty.
Ong King po sold the ppty to Victoriano
Cuenco a naturalized Fil cit.
Epifania usurped the ppty sold thereof
to Pacita Vallar claiming that it was not her
intention to sell the ppty to ongKing Po.
A forcible entry complaint was filed by
respondent
RTC: Dismissed complaint; declared Valler
absolute owner
CA: Reversed and declared Cuenco as
lawful owner
ISSUE: Who is the rightful owner of the
ppty?
HELD:
There is no question that sale to Ong
Kingpo was void ab initio violative of the
Consti. But the factual set-up changed as
litigated ppty was in the hands of a
naturalized Fil citizen, a qualified vendee.

LACHES. By her long inaction or

inexcusable neglect, petitioner Epifania
slept oin her rights from 26 years by her
inaction or inexcusable neglect.

Respondent therefore must be declared

rightful owner of ppty.
HERRERA v LUY KIM (see notes)
GODINEZ
notes)

FONG

PAK

LUEN

(see