Almendra v.

Intermediatte Appellate Court

G.R. No. 75111 November 21, 1991
Chief Justice Fernan

Facts:

Aleja Ceno was first married to Juanso Yu Book, with whom she had three children
Magdaleno, Melecia and Bernardina all surnamed Ceno. During her first marriage, Aleja
acquired a parcel of land with Tax Declaration No. 11500 (T/D No. 11500). After the death of
their father, Bernardina filed a case of partition of the said property against her mother,
Aleja. The lower court divided the property into four lots Lots No. 6354 (to Bernardina),
6353 (to Bernardina, subject to the rights of Melecia), 6352 (to Aleja, subject to the right of
Magdaleno) and 6366 (to Aleja). Aleja then married Santiago Almendra with whom she had
four children Margarito, Angeles, Roman and Delia. During the marriage, Aleja and
Santiago acquired a parcel of land with Original Certificate of Title No. 10094 (OCT No.
10094). Apart from said properties, Aleja inherited a parcel of land (T/D No. 27190) from her
father. Santiago, on the other hand, inherited a parcel of land from his mother. After
Santiagos death, Aleja sold the following properties: 1) to Angeles, one-half of the land
covered by OCT No. 10094 (which was Alejas one-half interest in said property) and one-half
of the land covered by T/D No. 27190; 2) to Roman, the land covered by T/D No. 11500; and
3) to Angeles and Roman, Lot No. 6352 (with reservation to Magdalenos right). Each of the
sales were for a consideration of Php2,000.00. After Alejas death, Bernardina, Margarito and
Delia filed a complaint for the annulment of the three sales executed by their mother in
favor of their two siblings, Angles and Roman, on the premise that their mothers consent
was vitiated. After the hearing, the trial court declares the sales to be null and void for being
simulated, and ordered the partition of Alejas estate. Upon appeal, the appellate court
upheld the validity of the deeds of sale.

Issue:

Whether or not the deeds of sale are valid even though one of them pertains to the
sale of particular portions of yet undivided real properties.

Held:

Yes, they are valid. The petitioners allegation of their mothers consent being vitiated
was not supported by evidence. They failed to show that the uniform price of Php2,000.00 in
all the sales was grossly inadequate. In addition, since the sale was between a mother and
her two children, filial love must be taken into consideration. Angeles and Roman also
proved that they had the means to pay the price and that they had actually paid the price
stipulated in the contract. It must be made clear, however, that: 1) the sale concerning the
land covered by T/D No. 27190 is valid for it is paraphernal; 2) the sale of the land covered
by T/D No. 11500 is valid only as to Lot No. 6366, which was the one unconditionally
adjudicated to her; and 3) the sale of Lot. No. 6352 is valid since the deed was still subject to
the right of Magdaleno (rule on caveat emptor). As to the sale of the land covered by OCT
No. 10094, the same shall only pertains to Alejas one-half interest therein, since the latter
could not have sold particular hilly portion specified in the deed of sale in the absence of
proof that the conjugal partnership property had been proportioned after the death of
Santiago. The reason for this is that Aleja could not claim title to any definite portion of the
property for all she had was an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire
property.