WILLIAM GENATO v.
BENJAMIN BAYHON enforceable and only served as evidence of
et al
G.R. No. 171035
April 24, 2009
(yung mga bold and highlight lang
importante sinama ko iba kasi baka LANG
kupal si Dean Vivian)
FACTS:
Benjamin Bayhon seeks to nullify a
dacion en pago allegedly executed by him in
favor of William Genato.
Bayhon obtained from Genato a loan
amounting to 1M. To cover said loan, Bayhon
executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
over the property covered by TCT 38052.
The execution of the DRLM was conditioned
upon the personal assurance of Genato that
it is only a private memorandum of
indebtedness and that it would neither be
notarized nor enforced.
In a separate proceeding, Bayhon filed
the reconstitution of TCT 38502 on the
ground that the dacion en pago was a
forgery that neither he nor his wife (who died
3yrs earlier) had executed it. (sabi ni genato
hindi forgery kasi di naman daw deads yung
asawa na may pinakilala si bayhon na wife
and sinign nga yung dacion en pago) –
CONSOLIDATED NA 2 CASES.
TRIAL COURT:
BAYHON IS LIABLE TO PAY GENATO THE
PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION
Dacion en pago: enforceable. the trial court
held that the parties have novated the
agreement.14 It deduced the novation from
the subsequent payments made by the
respondent to the petitioner.
at the time of the execution of the real estate
mortgage, the wife of respondent, Amparo
Mercado, was already dead. It held that the
property covered by TCT No. 38052 was
owned in common by the respondents and
not by respondent Benjamin Bayhon alone. It
concluded that the said lot could not have
been validly mortgaged by the respondent
alone; the deed of mortgage was not
the obligation of the respondent.
CA: reversed the decision.
The real estate mortgage and
the dacion en pago were both void
The appellate court ruled that at the
time the real estate mortgage and the dacion
en pago were executed, or on July 3, 1989
and October 21, 1989, respectively, the wife
of respondent Benjamin Bayhon was already
dead. Thus, she could not have participated
in the execution of the two documents. The
appellate court struck down both the dacion
en pago and the real estate mortgage as
being simulated or fictitious contracts
pursuant to Article 1409 of the Civil Code.
The Court of Appeals held further that
while the principal obligation is valid, the
death of respondent Benjamin Bayhon
extinguished it.  The heirs could not be
ordered to pay the debts left by the
deceased.
(side note: The loan in this case was
contracted by respondent. He died while the
case was pending before the Court of
Appeals. Pota pahamak si gagu)
ISSUE:
W/N the CA erred in declaring the real
estate mortgage and dacion en pago void.
Whether or not Benjamin Bayhon is
liable to Mr. Genato in the amount of Php
5,647,130.00 in principal and interest as of
October 3, 1997 and 5% monthly interest
thereafter until the account shall have been
fully paid.
RULING:
Dacion en pago: NO. DEAD WIFE =
FACT. CANNOT BE REVERSED =
SIMULATED FICTITIOUS CONTRACT.
 EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATION:
NO. DOES NOT EXTINGUISH.
Under our law, therefore, the general
rule is that a party's contractual rights and
obligations are transmissible to the
successors.
While he may no longer be compelled
to pay the loan, the debt subsists against his
estate. No property or portion of the
inheritance may be transmitted to his heirs
unless the debt has first been satisfied
ADDTIONALLY:
DEATH OF DEFENDANT BEFORE
FINAL JUDGMENT.
it shall not be dismissed but shall
instead be allowed to continue until entry of
final judgment. A favorable judgment
obtained by the plaintiff therein shall be
enforced in the manner especially provided
in these Rules for prosecuting claims against
the estate of a deceased person.
CORONEL v. CA
G.R. No. 103577
October 7, 1996
FACTS:
Putangina sales case to tangina
Okay medyo mahirap explain pero
ganito:
1. Concepcion (mother of Ramona)
(respondents ) paid 50,000 to the
Coronels as a down payment. –
jan15 85
2. The coronels executed a docu
“Reciept of DP” Upon receipt of
the 50k (JAN 19 85), the Coronels
will transfer in their names the title
of the property registered under
their dead dad.
3. Upon transfer to their names of the
property, the coronels will execute
the deed of absolute sale in favor
of Ramona and she will then pay
the coronels the remaining 1.190M
4. The title was transferred in their
names feb 6.
BUT!
5. THE CORONELS SOLD THE SAID
PROPERTY TO CATALINA for
1.580M AFTER SHE PAID 300K
6. Coronels cancelled the contract
(receipt of the DP) and then
deposited the 50k paid by
Concepcion in the bank in trust for
Ramona
7. Concepcion and Ramona filed a
complaint for specific action
against the Coronels
8. Catalina caused the annotation of
a notice of adverse claim covering
the same property with the
Registry of Deeds
9. The Coronels executed a DOA
over the property in favor of
CATALINA..
TRIAL COURT: Ruled in favor of RAMONA
CA: AFFIRM YARN
Petitioners also argue there could been no
perfected contract on January 19, 1985
because they were then not yet the absolute
owners of the inherited property.
ISSUE:
W/N THE CORONELS WERE THE
ABSOLUTE OWNERS OF THE INHERITED
PROPERTY
RULING:
YES.
Petitioners-sellers in the case at bar
being the sons and daughters of the
decedent Constancio P. Coronel are
compulsory heirs who were called to
succession by operation of law. Thus, at the
point their father drew his last breath,
petitioners stepped into his shoes insofar as
the subject property is concerned, such that
any rights or obligations pertaining thereto
became binding and enforceable upon them.
It is expressly provided that rights to the
succession are transmitted from the moment
of death of the decedent.
YAN LANG YUN TANGINA
PAKAHABA POTA.
PABLO LORENZO v. JUAN POSADAS
JR
G.R. No. L – 43082
JUNE 18, 1937
FACTS:
Pablo Lorenzo is a trustee of the
estate of Thomas Hanley (RIP) filed an action
against Juan Posadas Jr (Collector of Internal
Revenue) for the refund of 2,052.74 paid as
inheritance tax on the estate of Thomas and
for the collection of the interest.
BUT, Thomas Hanley left a will (was
then admitted to probate) and considerable
amount of real and personal properties.
Leaving the money and his properties to his
nephew Matthew Hanley. P.J.M Moore was
appointed as trustee of the properties, when
he resigned, Lorenzo was then appointed.
CFI Zamboanga ordered Lorenzo to
pay the said sum. hENCE, THIS APPEAL.
ISSUE:
Has there been deliquency in the
payment of the inheritance tax?
RULING:
A. YES.
P. J. M. Moore became trustee on March 10,
1924. On that date trust estate vested in him.
The mere fact that the estate of the
deceased was placed in trust did not remove
it from the operation of our inheritance tax
laws or exempt it from the payment of the
inheritance tax. The corresponding
inheritance tax should have been paid on or
before March 10, 1924,
 the delivery of the estate to the trustee
was in esse delivery of the same estate to
the cestui que trust, the beneficiary in this
case. A trustee is but an instrument or agent
for the cestui que trust.
When Moore accepted the trust and took
possession of the trust estate he thereby
admitted that the estate belonged not to him
but to his cestui que trust. He did not acquire
any beneficial interest in the estate. He took
such legal estate only as the proper
execution of the trust required and, his estate
ceased upon the fulfillment of the testator's
wishes. The estate then vested absolutely in
the beneficiary.
Were we to hold that the payment of the tax
could be postponed or delayed by the
creation of a trust of the type at hand, the
result would be plainly disastrous. Testators
may provide, as Thomas Hanley has
provided, that their estates be not delivered
to their beneficiaries until after the lapse of a
certain period of time. In the case at bar, the
period is ten years.
The collection of the tax would then be left
to the will of a private individual. The mere
suggestion of this result is a sufficient
warning against the accpetance of the
essential to the very exeistence of
government
For this reason, no one is allowed to object
to or resist the payment of taxes solely
because no personal benefit to him can be
pointed out. The obligation to pay taxes
rests not upon the privileges enjoyed by, or
the protection afforded to, a citizen by the
government but upon the necessity of
money for the support of the state.

ENRIQUEZ V. MIGUEL ABADIA
G.R. No. L-7188
AUGUST 9, 1954
FACTS:
Father Sancho Abadia, a parish priest,
executed his Last Will and testament. He
died on JAN 14, 1943. Andres Enriquez one
of the legatees in Abadia’s will petitioned for
the probate of the will but Some cousins and
nephews who would inherit the estate of the
deceased if he left no will, filed opposition.
Father Abadia wrote the will himself and
signed his name at the end of his writing all
this, done in the presence of 3 witnesses who
also signed the will. The trial court then
declared the Will to be a holographic will.
In the case at bar, the will was executed at
the time when the old civil code was in
effect.
when one executes a will which is invalid for
failure to observe and follow the legal
requirements at the time of its execution
then upon his death he should be regarded
and declared as having died intestate, and
his heirs will then inherit by intestate
succession, and no subsequent law with
more liberal requirements or which dispenses
with such requirements as to execution
should be allowed to validate a defective will
and thereby divest the heirs of their vested
rights in the estate by intestate succession.
The general rule is that the Legislature
cannot validate void wills

At the time of Father Abadia’s death,

holographic wills were not permitted by law
and the law at the time imposed certain
requirements for the execution of wills,
requirements which were not complied with.
At the time of the hearing and when the case
was to be decided the new Civil Code was
already in force—which permitted the
execution of holographic wills.

ISSUE:
W/N the new Civil Code should apply to the
probate of the Last Will of Father Abadia

RULING:

NO. Art. 795 of the New Civil Code expressly

provides:  "The validity of a will as to its form
depends upon the observance of the law in
force at the time it is made."

the validity of a will is to be judged not by

the law enforce at the time of the testator's
death or at the time the supposed will is
presented in court for probate or when the
petition is decided by the court but at the
time the instrument was executed.