*lifted from scribd

MOISES JOCSON, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AGUSTINA JOCSON-

VASQUEZ, ERNESTO VASQUEZ, respondents Petition for Certiorari to review CA
decision [February 16, 1989]
Facts:
Spouses Emilio Jocson & Alejandra Poblete had 2 children: Moises
Jocson & Agustina Jocson-Vasquez. Agustina is married to Ernesto Vasquez.
Alejandra died intestate.
April 1, 1972 Emilio died intestate.
June 20, 1973: Moises filed complaint, assailing validity of 3
documents executed by Emilio during his lifetime. He prays that the
following be declared null & void and that the properties involved be
partitioned bet him & his sister:
1. Deed of Sale executed July 27, 1968 wherein Emilio sold to Agustina 6
parcels of land in Naic, Cavite for P10,000.00. Deed included Emilios
manifestation that the lands was sold at a low price because it was his
loving, helpful & thoughtful daughter who bought the property. He
says his son possesses such qualities too. He further claims that the
sale did not violate any law & that he did not touch his wifes
properties. He acknowledged receipt of payment.
2. Deed of Sale executed July 27, 1968, selling 2 rice mills & a camalig in
Naic, Cavite to Agustina for P5,000.00. Emilio acknowledged receipt
too.
3. Deed of Extrajudicial Partition & Adjudication w/Sale executed March 9,
1969 wherein Emilio & Agustina, excluding Moises, extrajudicially
partitioned unsettled estate of Alejandra dividing such into 3. Emilio
sold his share to Agustina.
All documents were executed before a notary public. Nos. 1 & 2
were registered w/the Register of Deeds. Old certificates were cancelled &
new certificates issued in the name of Agustina.
Moises allegations: 1. #1 is null & void because his fathers
consent was obtained by fraud, deceit, undue pressure, influence & other
illegal machinations. He also alleges that property was sold for a simulated
price considering that his sister had no work or livelihood of her own. Also, he
claims that the contract is fictitious, simulated & fabricated.
1. Same allegations re #2 & #3 with additional allegation that he was
deliberately excluded & they intended to defraud him of his legitimate
share. He also claims that defendants were employed in their parents
business & they must have used business earnings or simulated
consideration in order to purchase the properties.
2. No real sale between dad & daughter living under same roof.
3. Dad didnt need money since sold properties were all income-producitng.
4. #1 & #2 are unliquidated conjugal properties that Emilio cant validly sell.
5. #3: he only questions sale of dads share to sister but not extrajudicial
partition.
RTC: decided in favor of petitioner. Documents were simulated &
fictitious because: 1) no proof that Agustina did pay for the properties, 2)
prices were grossly inadequate tantamount to lack of consideration at all, 3)
improbability of sale considering circumstances. Designed to exclude Moises.
Declared #1 & #2 properties as conjugal by virtue of registration
papers w/c declared: Emilio Jocson, married to Alejandra Poblete.
Ordered registration of prop to 2 children.
CA: reversed. Nos. 1 & 2 barred by prescription because annulment
of contract based on fraud must be filed 4 yrs from discovery of such w/c
begins on the date of the registration w/the Register of Deeds. All documents
actually & intended to be binding & effective against Emilio. Proof of such:
issuance of new titles. Partition w/sale in #3 is valid since it was done in
accordance w/New CC Art. 996 on intestate succession & Moises 1/3 has not
been prejudiced.
ISSUES & RATIO: 1. WON suit is solely based on fraud and as
such is barred by prescription NO. Contract tainted by vitiated
consent such as when consents obtained by fraud is voidable (CC Art.
1330) & action for annulment must be filed w/in 4 yrs from time of
discovery of fraud (CC Art. 1391 par.4). Discovery means the time
when contract was registered w/Register of Deeds (Gerona vs. De
Guzman).
If this was the only consideration, then it is barred by prescription. But
he further assailed that sale was w/o consideration since amount paid
were merely simulated. Contracts w/o cause or consideration produce
no effect whatsoever (CC Art. 1352). A sale w/simulated price is void
(CC Art. 1471 & 1409[3]) and action for declaration of its nullity does
not prescribe (CC Art. 1410).
2. WON sales were w/o consideration.
NO. Since Moises alleges such, it is incumbent upon him to prove his
allegations, especially since documents show that his dad (vendor)
acknowledged receipt of price & they are notarized. He failed to do so
and thus he was not able to overcome the presumption that a contract
is with consideration (CC Art. 1354). Even his own witness
contradicted his claim that his sister & her husband had no source of
income. Witness Bagnas said that Agustina & Ernesto were into buy &
sell of palay & rice. Even he himself said that he didnt know if his
sister had other businesses. Agustina testified that she was into buy &
sell even prior to her marriage.
3. WON prices were simulated
NO. No proof of inadequacy of price. In fact, purchase price was higher
than assessed value (#1: P10k vs. P8920.00, #2 P5k vs. P3,500, and
#3 P8k vs. P24,840.00). Besides difference bet market value &
purchase price is understandable considering fathers filial love for his
daughter. Gross inadequacy of price alone does not affect the contract
except perhaps an indication of defect in consent (CC Art. 1470). No
proof of defective consent.
4. WON sale is improbable.
NO. Improbability of sale is purely speculative. Not relevant
considering that all essential requirements for contract are clearly
present: consent, object & cause. 5. WON properties in #1 & #2
were conjugal properties of Emilio & wife. NO. CC Art. 160
provides that all property of marriage is presumed to belong to CP
unless proven otherwise. Condition sine qua non (main thing) would
be for party who invokes this to prove that properties were indeed
acquired during the marriage (Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin). Thus, Moises
has to present proof that properties in question were indeed obtained
during the marriage of their parents before he can invoke the
presumption. However, titles used by RTC in declaring properties as CP
(see RTC decision in bold letters) are insufficient proof. Doesnt say
when properties were obtained. Acquisition of title (actual owning of
land) is different from registration. Possible that Emilio acquired
properties when he was still a bachelor & only registered such after
marriage.
Married to phrase is a mere description of Emilios civil status at the
time of registration (Litam v Rivera). It should be interpreted as Emilo
is the owner, property registered in his name alone & that he is
married. Consistent w/principle that registration of property in name of
only one spouse doesnt negate possibility of it being conjugal (Bucoy
vs. Paulino). Both require sufficient, clear & convincing
proof to rebut the presumption. Moises should have presented
sufficient proof to show that properties were acquired during the
marriage so that he may enjoy the presumption under Art. 160. Due
to lack of proof, presumption does not exist, thus, properties are
considered exclusive to Emilio.
HOLDING: Petition dismissed. CA affirmed.