Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 540 views

    Esperanza C. Carinan Vs Spouses Gavino Cueto and Carmelita Cueto G.R. No. 198636 October 8 2014 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nic Nalpen
    The petitioner and her husband acquired rights to a parcel of land from GSIS but failed to pay several amortizations, putting the conditional sale at risk of cancellation. The petitioner sought financial help from her brother, the respondent, who paid the total obligation to GSIS along with renovations. The petitioner and her son executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with the condition to buy back the land within three years, then surrendered the title to the respondents. The petitioner claimed it was a donation while the respondents claimed it was a loan and demanded repayment. Both lower courts ruled in favor of the respondents, finding the large payment was a loan since a donation over PHP 5,000 requires writing. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting the petitioner failed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Esperanza C. Carinan Vs Spouses Gavino Cueto and Carmelita Cueto G.R. No. 198636 October 8 2014 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nic Nalpen
    540 views1 page
    The petitioner and her husband acquired rights to a parcel of land from GSIS but failed to pay several amortizations, putting the conditional sale at risk of cancellation. The petitioner sought financial help from her brother, the respondent, who paid the total obligation to GSIS along with renovations. The petitioner and her son executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with the condition to buy back the land within three years, then surrendered the title to the respondents. The petitioner claimed it was a donation while the respondents claimed it was a loan and demanded repayment. Both lower courts ruled in favor of the respondents, finding the large payment was a loan since a donation over PHP 5,000 requires writing. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting the petitioner failed

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Carinan v Cueto

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner and her husband acquired rights to a parcel of land from GSIS but failed to pay several amortizations, putting the conditional sale at risk of cancellation. The petitioner sought financial help from her brother, the respondent, who paid the total obligation to GSIS along with renovations. The petitioner and her son executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with the condition to buy back the land within three years, then surrendered the title to the respondents. The petitioner claimed it was a donation while the respondents claimed it was a loan and demanded repayment. Both lower courts ruled in favor of the respondents, finding the large payment was a loan since a donation over PHP 5,000 requires writing. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting the petitioner failed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    540 views1 page

    Esperanza C. Carinan Vs Spouses Gavino Cueto and Carmelita Cueto G.R. No. 198636 October 8 2014 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Nic Nalpen
    The petitioner and her husband acquired rights to a parcel of land from GSIS but failed to pay several amortizations, putting the conditional sale at risk of cancellation. The petitioner sought financial help from her brother, the respondent, who paid the total obligation to GSIS along with renovations. The petitioner and her son executed a Deed of Absolute Sale with the condition to buy back the land within three years, then surrendered the title to the respondents. The petitioner claimed it was a donation while the respondents claimed it was a loan and demanded repayment. Both lower courts ruled in favor of the respondents, finding the large payment was a loan since a donation over PHP 5,000 requires writing. The Supreme Court affirmed, noting the petitioner failed

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Esperanza C.

    Carinan vs Spouses Gavino Cueto and Carmelita Cueto


    G.R. No. 198636
    October 8 2014
    Facts:
    The respondent spouses alleged that in May 1986 that the petitioner and her husband
    acquired the rights to a parcel of land in Laguna under the name of the GSIS and were to
    assume payment of the monthly amortizations. The petitioner and her husband did not pay
    several amortizations, thus the GSIS planned to cancel the conditional sale in 2005.
    Petitioner, who was widowed by then, went to Gavino, her brother, for financial help and the
    respondents paid the total obligation to GSIS along with the payment for transfer and
    renovation of the residential house. The petitioner and Jazer, the petitioner's son, executed a
    Deed of Absolute Sale with the condition to buy the land back within three years. The
    petitioner surrendered the TCT to the respondents.
    The respondents demanded from the petitioner to fulfill the transfer of the property through
    the deed of sale by the petitioner and her son did not comply. The respondents filed with the
    RTC seeking refund of the total expenses paid plus damages and attorney's fees.
    Petitioner countered saying that it was donation and the payment was made out of generosity
    and pity towards the petitioner and there was no written or oral agreement for transfer or
    repayment.
    The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents reasoning that such a large amount paid by the
    respondent was a loan, not a donation, and if the intention was donation, the petitioner should
    have kept possession of the title. The RTC cannot compel the petitioner to transfer the property
    since it was unenforceable as it was not in writing.
    The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
    Issue:
    WON the agreement was a contract of loan or donation
    Held:
    The SC affirmed the decision of the RTC and CA
    The SC ruled that the purely gratuitous act was not supported by records citing the Civil Code
    that any donation over Php5000 shall be in writing otherwise it is void. The formal
    requirements are mandatory according to Article 748 and non compliance results in a void
    donation.
    Although giving help to someone in need, it does not mean such help equates to a donation
    and would not contradict a claim for the return of the aid given. The petitioner imputed deceit
    on the part of the respondent, a serious charge that cannot be proven by mere allegation.
    The factual findings of the trial court and affirmed by the CA will not be disturbed. Such
    findings are conclusive upon the SC when supported by evidence on record. The petitioner also
    introduced the issues of co-ownership and builders in bad faith. Such factual issues cannot be
    raised on a petition for reviews on certiorari and such defenses cannot be raised for the first
    time on appeal.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy