P B T B a r a h a n o g e g n p t t u e a t a l r s r s m t a e e i e n t e t s t . s . f a a e o l r l r f . e .

s c

BAGNAS V CA (1989) Bagnas et al wants to recover possession of a land allegedly sold by Mateum to respondents. Hilario Mateum of Kawit, Cavite, died on March 11, 1964, single, without ascendants or descendants, and survived only by collateral relatives, of whom petitioners (Bagnas et al) herein, his first cousins, were the nearest. Mateum left no will. 10 parcels of his are now being questioned. The respondents (Retonil et al), also Matem's collateral relatives but farther in degree registered with the Registry of Deeds for the Province of Cavite 2 deeds of sale purportedly executed by Mateum in their favor covering 10 parcels of land. Both deeds were in Tagalog & and each recited the reconsideration of the sale to be P1, services rendered and to be rendered for Mateum's benefit. Assessed value of the 10 parcels of land : 10,500pesos. Petitioner contentions: deeds of sale to respondents are fictitious, fraudulent or falsified, or, alternatively, as donations void for want of acceptance embodied in a public instrument. Respondent defense: -Petitioners cannot collaterally attack the sale as they are mere collateral relatives of Hilario Mateum. They had no right to impugn the latters disposition of his properties by means of the questioned conveyances. -No evidence of fraud tainting said transfers had been presented. -Acceptance of a donation in a public instrument not required. TC & CA: In favor of respondents. Petitioners have no standing to attack the the conveyance. Insufficient evidence to prove fraud. SC: TRANSFER IS VOID. NO VALID CONSIDERATION. The fact that the law as it is now (during thetime of Armentia) no longer deems contracts with a false cause, or which are absolutely simulated orfictitious, merely voidable, but declares them void, i.e., inexistent (nulo) unless it is shown that theyare supported by another true and lawful cause or consideration NOT A VALID SALE. Upon the consideration alone that the apparent gross, not to say enormous, disproportion between thestipulated price in each deed of P1 plus unspecified and unquantilled services and the undisputablyvaluable real estate allegedly sold (worth at least P10,500.00) plainly and unquestionably demonstrates that they state a false and fictitious consideration, and no other true andlawful cause having been shown, the Court finds both said deeds, insofar as they purport to be sales,not merely voidable, but void ab initio. ALSO NOT A VALID DONATION Donations of immovable property, to be valid, must be made and accepted in a public instrument, and it is not denied by Retonil, et. al. that there has been no such acceptance which they claim is not required. PETITIONERS BAGTAS CAN RECOVER. The transfers in question being void, it follows as a necessary consequence and conformably to theconcurring opinion in Armentia case, that the properties purportedly conveyed remained part of the estate of Hilario Mateum, said transfers notwithstanding,

recoverable by his intestate heirs, i.e. Bagtas, et.al., whose status as such is not challenged