142 MAXIMINO CARANTES v COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-33360| 25 April 1977 | C.J. Castro | TIGLAO
TOPIC: Elements of Contract - Cause
DOCTRINE: It is total absence of cause or consideration that renders a contract
absolutely void and inexistent
ER: Heirs of Mateo Carantes executed a Deed of Assignment of Right to
Inheritance in favor of Maximino Carantes. They later sought to annul said deed
on the ground of fraud after they found out that two of the lots were placed
exclusively under the name of Maximino and for absence of consideration.
Supreme Court held that the Deed is valid and that there was sufficient
consideration – the ONE PESO and the fact that they subscribed the Deed
which stated that Maximino stated during his lifetime that the property solely
belonged to Maximino.
The respondents' action may not be considered as one to declare the
inexistence of a contract for lack of consideration. It is total absence of cause
or consideration that renders a contract absolutely void and inexistent. In the
case at bar, consideration was not absent. The sum of P1.00 appears in the
document as one of the considerations for the assignment of inheritance. In
addition — and this of great legal import — the document recites that the
decedent Mateo Carantes had, during his lifetime, expressed to the signatories
to the contract that the property subject-matter thereof rightly and exclusively
belonged to the petitioner Maximino Carantes. This acknowledgment by the
signatories definitely constitutes valuable consideration for the contract.

FACTS:
1. Mateo Carantes died leaving behind Lot No. 44 to his wife and children.
2. Petitioner Maximino Carantes, one of his children, was appointed as
judicial administrator of his estate.
3. The Government subdivided the lot into five and expropriated Lot A.
4. A deed coined as “Assignment of Right to Inheritance” was executed
by the other heirs of Mateo assigning their right to the lot for a monetary
consideration ONE PESO.
5. A complaint was later filed by the other heirs of Mateo alleging that
they executed the deed because they were made to believe by the
petitioner that the said instrument merely authorized him to convey
portions of the lot to the Government to minimize expenses.
6. They prayed that the deed be declared null and void because it was
attended by fraud.

ISSUE/S: W/N the Deed of Assignment of Right to Inheritance is void ab initio –

NO

HELD/RULING:
We do not agree with the respondent court's legal conclusion that the deed of
"Assignment of Right to Inheritance" is void ab initio and inexistent on the
grounds that real consent was wanting and the consideration of P1.00 is so
shocking to the conscience that there was in fact no consideration, hence, the
action for the declaration of the contract's inexistence does not prescribe
pursuant to article 1410 of the new Civil Code.

Article 1409 (2) of the new Civil Code relied upon by the respondent court
provides that contracts "which are absolutely simulated or fictitious" are
inexistent and void from the beginning. The basic characteristic of simulation is
the fact that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce
legal effects or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties.