Tañedo vs CA [GR No. 104482] Case Digest

Tañedo vs CA

GR No. 104482

 

Facts:

On October 20, 1962, Lazardo Tañedo executed a notarized deed of absolute sale in favor of his eldest brother, Ricardo Tañedo, and the latter's wife, Teresita Barera, private respondents herein, whereby he conveyed to the latter in consideration of P1,500.00, "one hectare of whatever share I shall have over Lot 191 located at Gerona, Province of Tarlac; the said property being his "future inheritance" from his parents.

Upon the death of his father Matias, Lazaro executed an "Affidavit of Conformity" dated February 28, 1980 to "re-affirm, respect. acknowledge and validate the sale I made in 1962." On January 13, 1981, Lazaro executed another notarized deed of sale in favor of private respondents covering his "undivided ONE TWELVE (1/12) of a parcel of land known as Lot 191.

Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same property to his children, petitioners herein. On June 7, 1982, private respondents recorded the Deed of Sale (Exh. 4) in their favor in the Registry of Deeds.

Petitioners filed a complaint for rescission (plus damages) of the deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in favor of private respondents covering the property inherited by Lazaro from his father.

Private respondents, however presented in evidence a "Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale" dated March 12, 1981 wherein Lazaro revoked the sale in favor of petitioners for the reason that it was "simulated or fictitious - without any consideration whatsoever."

The trial court decided in favor of private respondents, holding that petitioners failed "to adduce a preponderance of evidence to support (their) claim." On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

 

Issue:

Whether or not the sale of future inheritance is valid.

 

Held:

No as to the contract of 1962.

 

Ratio:

To remove all doubts, we hereby categorically rule that, pursuant to Article 1347 of the Civil Code, "(n)o contract may be entered into upon a future inheritance except in cases expressly authorized by law."

Consequently, said contract made in 1962 is not valid and cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation between the parties.

Hence, the "affidavit of conformity" dated February 28, 1980, insofar as it sought to validate or ratify the 1962 sale, is also useless and, in the words of the respondent Court, "suffers from the same infirmity." Even private respondents in their memorandum concede this.

However, the documents that are critical to the resolution of this case are: (a) the deed of sale of January 13, 1981 in favor of private respondents covering Lazaro's undivided inheritance of one-twelfth (1/12) share in Lot No. 191, which was subsequently registered on June 7, 1982; and (b) the deed of sale dated December 29, 1980 in favor of petitioners covering the same property. These two documents were executed after the death of Matias (and his spouse) and after a deed of extrajudicial settlement of his (Matias') estate was executed, thus vesting in Lazaro actual title over said property. In other words, these dispositions, though conflicting, were no longer infected with the infirmities of the 1962 sale.