Francisco vs.

Francisco-Alfonso
G.R. No. 138774 | March 8, 2001
PARDO, J.
TOPIC: Restrictions on Legitimes

SUMMARY:
Respondent was the legitimate child of Gregorio Francisco. Before Gregorio died, he told
Respondent that the titles to his properties were with his illegitimate children, herein Respondents.
When Petitioner asked from the Respondents, the latter told her that the properties were sold to
them by Gregorio. The Petitioner filed a complaint for the annulment of the sale.

The Court ruled in favor of the Respondent and held that the sale was void. The Petitioners failed
to show that there was indeed a consideration because their incomes are not enough to pay for
the alleged price, and they were not able to show any evidence as to the payment. Moreover, the
said sale was void because it deprived Respondent of her share in her father's estate. The said
properties were the only properties owned by Gregorio.

DOCTRINE:
The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of
the father and of the mother. The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half subject to the
rights of illegitimate children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided.

FACTS:
 Spouses Gregorio Francisco and Cirila de la Cruz had one legitimate child, Aida Francisco-
Alfonso, herein Respondent.

 Gregorio however, had 7 illegitimate children with his common law wife Julia Mendoza,
which are the Petitioners herein.

 When Gregorio was confined in a hospital, he confided to his daughter Aida that certificates
of title of his property were in the possession of 2 of her illegitimate children, Regina
Francisco and Zenaida Pascual.

 After Gregorio died, Aida inquired about the certificates of title from her half sisters.
o They informed her that Gregorio had sold the land to them for P25,000 as proven by
a deed of absolute sale (Kasulatan sa Ganap na Bilihan) in favor of Regina
Francisco and Zenaida Pascual.

 Respondent Aida filed with the RTC a complaint for annulment of sale with damages against
petitioners, alleging that:
o the signature of her late father, Gregorio Francisco, on the deed of sale was a
forgery.

 In their joint answer to the complaint, Petitioners denied the alleged forgery or simulation of
the deed of sale.

 After due proceedings, the RTC dismissed the complaint

 On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC, declaring the sale void

  Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
W/N the sale in favor of the illegitimate children is void --- YES

 The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive
and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under
any of the recognized exceptions to the rule.
 The Court affirmed the CA on 2 reasons

First: the deed was simulated

 There was no consideration for the contract of sale as can be gleaned from the fact that
Petitioners did not have the capacity to pay for the price allegedly paid
o Felicitas de la Cruz, a family friend of the Franciscos, testified that Zenaida Pascual
and Regina Francisco did not have any source of income when they bought the
property
o Meanwhile, Zenaida Pascual alleged that she was engaged in operating a canteen,
working as cashier, and selling clothes.
o Regina Francisco, on the other hand, was a market vendor, selling nilugaw.

 The Court held that the testimonies of Petitioners were incredible considering that:
o Their earnings from their said jobs could not give them enough savings to pay the
consideration of P25,000
o Moreover, their statements as to whether there was consideration for the sale and
also as to whether the property was bought below or above its supposed market
value were inconsistent.
o Lastly, they could not even present a single witness to the kasulatan that would
prove receipt of the purchase price.

 Since there was no cause or consideration for the sale, the same was a simulation and
hence, null and void.

Second: it violated the legitime of legitimate children

 The sale was executed in 1983, when the applicable law was the Civil Code, not the Family
Code.

 According to Article 888, Civil Code:

o "The legitime of legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the
hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.
o "The latter may freely dispose of the remaining half subject to the rights of illegitimate
children and of the surviving spouse as hereinafter provided."

 By law, Respondent is entitled to half of the estate of her father as his only legitimate child.
o Gregorio Francisco did not own any other property.
o If indeed the parcels of land involved were the only property left by their father, the
sale in fact would deprive Respondent of her share in her father's estate.

 Obviously, the sale was Gregorio's way to transfer the property to his illegitimate
daughters at the expense of his legitimate daughter.
o But before his death, Gregorio had a change of heart and informed his daughter
about the titles to the property.
  The legal heirs of the late Gregorio Francisco must be determined in proper testate or
intestate proceedings for settlement of the estate.

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CV
No. 48545 is AFFIRMED, in toto.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.