Scribd
Upload
72 views2 pages

CAMPOS Case

The Spouses Campos owned land and were sued by Respondents, who won the case. The Respondents tried to levy properties of the Spouses Campos but found they had been sold to the Spouses' children, the petitioners. The Respondents argued the sale was fictitious to avoid creditors. The petitioners claimed good faith purchase before notice of other claims. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was simulated based on late registration, disparities in consideration and prices, and the Spouses Campos retaining possession. The sale being void, Article 1381(3) on rescindable contracts did not apply. The Court affirmed the sale was fictitious and void from the beginning.

Uploaded by

adelainezernagmail.com
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views2 pages

CAMPOS Case

The Spouses Campos owned land and were sued by Respondents, who won the case. The Respondents tried to levy properties of the Spouses Campos but found they had been sold to the Spouses' children, the petitioners. The Respondents argued the sale was fictitious to avoid creditors. The petitioners claimed good faith purchase before notice of other claims. The Supreme Court ruled the sale was simulated based on late registration, disparities in consideration and prices, and the Spouses Campos retaining possession. The sale being void, Article 1381(3) on rescindable contracts did not apply. The Court affirmed the sale was fictitious and void from the beginning.

Uploaded by

adelainezernagmail.com
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Facts:

Spouses Campos were owners of different parcels of land. Now, a case was filed against them by the
Respondents where the latter won. The respondents wanted to levy some properties of the Spouses
Campos but found out that these have already been sold to the children of the Spouses, the petitioners
of this case.

Consequently, the Respondents filed to nullify the Deed of Sale for being fictitious. According to the
Respondents, the sale was done by the Spouses Campos to avoid the properties being levied and
attached by the Respondents as creditors.

The petitioners answered that they had purchased the properties in question in good faith and for value
in 1985 because these were sold to them before they had any notice of the claims or interests of other
persons. The petitioners also argued that since the Court of Appeals decided that the sale were done in
fraud of creditors, the applicable provision for them will be Article 1381 (3) on rescissible contracts.

Issues:

Whether or not the sale made by the Spouses Campos to their children was fictitious?

Whether or not Article 1381 (3) on rescissible contracts is applicable to their case?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled that the sale of the Spouses Campos of their different lands to their children
were really fictitious and absolutely simulated because of the following reasons:

1) The petitioners could not give any sufficient reasons why the sale, although dated in 1985 and
1988, were only registered in the 1990s (during the pendency of the case filed by the
Respondents against the Spouses Campos). It can be assumed that the sales were antedated;
2) There are great disparities between the consideration as written in the Deed of Sale versus the
actual zonal valuation;
3) The Spouses Campos continue to possess the property without giving rent or any consideration
to the new owners (the petitioners).

Given the said reasons, the sales made by the Spouses Campos of their different lands to their children
were simulated and thus are void from the beginning.

The Supreme Court also decided that since the sale was void from the beginning, there was no sale to
reckon with. Article 1381 (3) is not applicable as the action to rescind is founded upon and presupposes
the existence of a contract.
However, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals that indeed the Deed of Sale
executed by the Spouses Campos to their children were fictitious, thus are void from the beginning.
Thus, the applicable provision is

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