[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
172 views1 page

Tanchuling Cantela 1

Spouses Tanchuling and Cantela executed a deed of sale for two parcels of land, with P400K appearing as consideration. However, Spouses Tanchuling never physically possessed the properties. When they demanded the title certificates back from Cantela, he refused. Spouses Tanchuling filed a complaint to annul the deed, arguing there was no actual consideration and the deed was executed to show neighbors they owned the land. Cantela insisted the sale was valid. The RTC nullified the deed as absolutely simulated, as the parties simultaneously executed an undated deed reconveying the properties to Spouses Tanchuling. The CA reversed, finding consideration in the acknowledged receipt and that the notarized deed prevailed over

Uploaded by

astig79
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
172 views1 page

Tanchuling Cantela 1

Spouses Tanchuling and Cantela executed a deed of sale for two parcels of land, with P400K appearing as consideration. However, Spouses Tanchuling never physically possessed the properties. When they demanded the title certificates back from Cantela, he refused. Spouses Tanchuling filed a complaint to annul the deed, arguing there was no actual consideration and the deed was executed to show neighbors they owned the land. Cantela insisted the sale was valid. The RTC nullified the deed as absolutely simulated, as the parties simultaneously executed an undated deed reconveying the properties to Spouses Tanchuling. The CA reversed, finding consideration in the acknowledged receipt and that the notarized deed prevailed over

Uploaded by

astig79
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

63 Tanchuling v.

Cantela
G.R. No. 209284 | Nov 10, 2015|PERLAS-BERNABE | DE GUZMAN
Topic: Void Contracts

FACTS:
1. 1. Sps. Tanchuling and Cantela executed the deed of sale covering 2 parcels of land in Legazpi City.
2. 2. On the face of the deed, P400K appears as the consideration for Cantela's purported purchase of the
properties.
3. 3. Vicente delivered the owner's copies of TCTs to Cantela, although none of the parties are in actual physical
possession of the properties.
4. 4. When Sps. Tanchuling tried to recover the TCTs from Cantela, the latter refused despite the former's earnest
demands.
5. 5. Sps Tanchuling filed a Complaint for Annulment of Deed of Sale and Delivery of the Owner's Duplicate Copy
of the TCT alleging: (1)that the subject deed was absolutely simulated, hence, null and void; (2) that: (a) there
was no actual consideration paid by Cantela to them; (b) the subject deed was executed to merely show to their
neighbors that they are the true owners of the properties; and (c) Cantela simultaneously executed an undated
Deed of Absolute Sale reconveying the properties in their favor.
6. 6. Cantela insisted that the sale of the properties to him was valid and that the undated deed was
surreptitiously inserted by Sps. Tanchuling in the copies of the subject deed presented to him for signing.
7. 7. RTC: nullified the deed for being absolutely simulated; parties never intended to be bound by the subject
deed in view of the simultaneous execution of the undated deed selling back the properties to Sps. Tanchuling.
They knew that the sale could not be factually consummated since Sps. Tanchuling were not in actual physical
possession of the properties at the time the subject deed was executed.
8. 8. CA: reversed; found consideration for the sale when Sps. Tanchuling acknowledged receipt in the subject
deed itself. It observed that the subject deed should prevail over the undated deed as the former was notarized
while the latter was not.

You might also like