INCAPACITY CASE DIGESTS

LAO v GENATO

FACTS:

Petitioner spouses were promises in a Mutual Agreement of Promise to sell between them and private respondent Sotero Dionisio, Jr., heir and administrator of the intestate estate of deceased mother Rosenda Abuton. The promisor bound himself to sell the subject ppty to petitioners.

Respodnnet administrator Sotero DIonisio, Jr. w/ due notice to all co-heirs filed a Motion for Authority to sell certain ppties of the deceased to settle the outstanding obligations of the estate.

Probate court: authorized administrator to sell ppties

Respondent admin. Pursuant to said authorization, sold to his son, Sotero Dionisio III, a ppty the latter sold the same to William Go, title was transferred.

Florida Nuqui, filed a Motion for Annulment of sale for the reasons that subseq transfer fo title were made in violation of court’s order and that consideration was grossly inadequate.

Petitioner sps. filed Manifestation in Intervention of Interest that respondent-adminstrator w/o revealing that ppty has already been sold entered into a Mutual Agreement of Promise to sell w/ them. The latter paid earnest money immediately upon execution of contract.

After several days, respondent Judge Genato allowed bidding for the ppty Amicable settlement was agreed upon but petitioner spouses opposed as mortgagees.

HELD:

The authorization was made to settle outstanding obligations of the estate. But, the sale to his very son for a grossly low price was indubitable shown to be ficititious. The consideration was never accounted for in the probate court

The sale to Go was illegal and irregular which was confirmed by the respondent judg violative of Art. 1409 w/c cannot work to confirm nor ratify a ficititious contract nonexistent and void.

RULING: AMICABLE SETTLEMENT NULL AND VOID; SALE TO GO NULL AND VOID; NEW PROCEEDINGS FOR SALE OF PPTY

SARSOSA VDA DE BARSOBIA v CUENCO

FACTS:

Lot in controversy involves half portion of 2 adjoining parcels of coconut lands at MIsamis Oriental.

Entire land was owned previously by a certain Leocadia Balisado who sold it to sps Babsobia (deceased) and Epifania Sarsosa, petitioners.

Epifania Sarsosa sold the land to Ong King Po and the latter took possession of ppty.

Ong King po sold the ppty to Victoriano Cuenco a naturalized Fil cit.

Epifania usurped the ppty sold ½ thereof to Pacita Vallar claiming that it was not her intention to sell the ppty to ongKing Po.

A forcible entry complaint was filed by respondent

RTC: Dismissed complaint; declared Valler absolute owner

CA: Reversed and declared Cuenco as lawful owner

ISSUE: Who is the rightful owner of the ppty?

HELD:

There is no question that sale to Ong Kingpo was void ab initio violative of the Consti. But the factual set-up changed as litigated ppty was in the hands of a naturalized Fil citizen, a qualified vendee.

LACHES. By her long inaction or inexcusable neglect, petitioner Epifania slept oin her rights from 26 years by her inaction or inexcusable neglect.

Respondent therefore must be declared rightful owner of ppty.

HERRERA v LUY KIM (see notes)

GODINEZ v FONG PAK LUEN (see notes)