CONCEPCION FELIX VDA. DE RODRIGUEZ vs.GERONIMO RODRIGUEZ.

Facts: Prior to her marriage to Rodriguez, Concepcion Felix was the registered owner of 2 fishponds
located in the barrio of Babañgad, municipality of Bulacan. Concepcion Felix appeared to have executed
a deed of sale conveying ownership of the aforesaid properties to her daughter, Concepcion Calderon,
for the sum of P2,500.00, which the latter in turn appeared to have transferred to her mother and
stepfather by means of a document. Domingo Rodriguez died intestate. Children and grandchildren of
the deceased entered into an extra-judicial settlement of his estate, consisting of one-half of the
properties allegedly belonging to the conjugal partnership. 

Rodriguez children executed another document granting unto the widow lifetime usufruct over one-
third of the fishpond which they received as hereditary share in the estate of Domingo Rodriguez, which
grant was accepted by Concepcion Felix Vda. de Rodriguez.

It seemed that the relationship between the widow and her stepchildren had turned for the worse.
Thus, when widow failed to deliver to them the balance of the earnings of the fishponds, in the amount
of P3,000.00, the stepchildren sent a letter of demand to the widow for payment thereof. But the widow
filed an action in court in connection with the deed of transfer.

The action to declare null and void the deeds of transfer of plaintiff's properties to was based on the
alleged employment or exercise by plaintiff's deceased husband of force and pressure on her; that the
conveyances of the properties — from plaintiff to her daughter and then to the conjugal partnership of
plaintiff and her husband — are both without consideration.

In their answers defendants set as a counterclaim payment by the plaintiff of the unpaid balance of the
earnings of the land up to August 15, 1962 in the sum of P3,000.00, for attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation.

The judgment of the trial Court was in favor of the defendants in which the plaintiff appealed to the
higher court.

The widow appealed to this Court, insisting that the conveyances in issue were obtained through duress,
and were inexistent, being simulated and without consideration.

Issue: Whether or not the contention of the plaintiff is meritorious.

Held: The court ruled that what is more decisive is that duress being merely a vice or defect of consent,
an action based upon it must be brought within four years after it has ceased and the present action was
instituted only in 1962, twenty eight (28) years after the intimidation is claimed to have occurred, and
no less than nine (9) years after the supposed culprit died (1953). At most, appellant entered into a
series of subsequent transactions with appellees that confirmed the contracts that she now tries to set
aside. In the circumstances, appellant's cause has become a stale demand and her conduct placed her in
estoppel to question the Validity of the transfer of her properties.Therefore, this cause of action is
clearly barred.
The charge of simulation is untenable, for the characteristic of simulation is the fact that the apparent
contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effects or in way alter the juridical situation of
the parties. Thus, where a person, in order to place his property beyond the reach of his creditors,
simulates a transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to divest himself of his title and control of
the property; hence, the deed of transfer is but a sham. For appellant could not intend to keep the
ownership of the fishponds and at the same time vest half of them in her husband. The two contracts of
sale then could not have been simulated, but were real and intended to be fully operative, being the
means to achieve the result desired.

RAFAEL G. SUNTAY vs. COURT OF APPEALS

Facts: Respondent Federico Suntay was the registered owner of a parcel of land with an area of
5,118 square meters, more or less, situated in Sto. Niño, Hagonoy, Bulacan. Federico, a rice miller,
applied as a miller-contractor of the then National Rice and Corn Corporation On the land may be
found: a rice mill, a warehouse, and other improvements. His application, although prepared by his
nephew-lawyer, petitioner Rafael Suntay, was disapproved, because at that time he have several
unpaid loans. For purposes of circumvention, he had thought of allowing Rafael, his nephew to make
the application for him. Rafael prepared an absolute deed of sale whereby Federico, for and in
consideration of P20,000.00 conveyed to Rafael said parcel of land with all its existing structures.

Federico, through his new counsel, Agrava & Agrava, requested that Rafael deliver his copy of TCT
No. T-36714 so that Federico could have the counter deed of sale in his favor registered in his
name. Rafael turned down the request of Federico which in turn make the latter file a complaint
requesting the former to surrender the duplicate certificate of TCT No. T-36174.

Issue: The issue in this case was the validity of the said deed of sale in favor of Rafael Suntay.

Held: The Court presented two presumptions that if it hold substance, will be considered a prima facie
on the transactions validity.
First: That there was sufficient consideration of the contract
Second: That it was a result of a fair and regular private transaction

The late Rafael testified that he had completely trusted Federico and so he signed and delivered the
counter-deed of sale even without prior payment of the alleged repurchase price of P20,000.00.
Federico had such faith and confidence in the late Rafael, as nephew and counsel, that he blindly signed
and executed the sale in question. He had recommended Rafael as legal counsel and had entrusted to
Rafael many of his business documents and personal papers, the return of which he did not demand
even upon termination of their professional relationship. It was precisely because of this relationship
that Federico consented to what he alleged as a loan of title over his land and rice mill in favor of the
late Rafael.

History and relationship of trust, between the late Rafael and Federico is an undeniable token of
simulation. It has been observed that fraud is generally accompanied by trust. Federico, the uncle,
would almost naively lend his land title to his nephew and agree to its cancellation in his nephew's favor
because Federico, in the first place trusted his nephew; was well aware of his power over him as uncle,
client, and patron; and was actually in possession of the land and rice mill. No one could even conceive
of the possibility of ejecting Federico therefrom on the basis of the sham transaction.

The failure of the late Rafael to take exclusive possession of the property allegedly sold to him is a clear
badge of fraud. The fact that, notwithstanding the title transfer, Federico remained in actual possession,
cultivation and occupation of the disputed lot from the time the deed of sale was executed until the
present, is a circumstance which is unmistakably added proof of the fictitiousness of the said
transfer, the same being contrary to the principle of ownership. 

The cumulative effect of the evidence on record as chronicled aforesaid identified badges of simulation
proving that the sale by Federico to his deceased nephew of his land and rice mill, was not intended to
have any legal effect between them. Though the notarization of the deed of sale in question vests in its
favor the presumption of regularity, it is not the intention nor the function of the notary public to
validate and make binding an instrument never, in the first place, intended to have any binding legal
effect upon the parties thereto. The intention of the parties still and always is the primary consideration
in determining the true nature of a contract.

The deed of sale executed by Federico in favor of his now deceased nephew, Rafael, is absolutely
simulated and fictitious and, hence, null and void, said parties having entered into a sale transaction to
which they did not intend to be legally bound.