Escutin v. Escutin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs (Pedro Escutin, et al.) filed an action to annul a deed of sale executed by their deceased father, Sabas Escutin, in favor of the defendant, Socorro Escutin. Sabas Escutin, who was married to Paula Arboly and had four children with her (the plaintiffs), had been living with his mistress, Juana Yap, for many years. The defendant, Socorro Escutin, is the daughter of Juana Yap and lived with them. Sabas Escutin, who had been ill for a long time, executed the deed of sale twelve days before his death, conveying a parcel of registered land valued at P3,750 to the defendant for P1,925. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Capiz found the deed of sale to be null and void, holding it to be simulated and fraudulent, and declared the land to be the property of the plaintiffs. The Petition: The defendant appealed the decision, contending that the consideration of P1,925 was delivered in cash and that the document was validly executed. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented, including testimonies regarding the alleged payment of the purchase price and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed.
Issue(s)
Whether the deed of sale executed by Sabas Escutin in favor of Socorro Escutin is null and void due to simulation and lack of consideration. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to strike out allegations regarding her paternity and in admitting evidence on the matter.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, declaring the deed of sale null and void. The Court found the evidence sufficient to sustain the lower court's findings that the consideration stated in the deed was fictitious and that the document was executed in fraud of the plaintiffs. The Court also found that the trial court's errors in admitting evidence regarding paternity were not reversible errors as they did not affect the proof that the contract was without consideration.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nullity of the deed of sale: The Court held that the deed of sale was null and void because it was simulated and fraudulent, lacking a valid consideration. The evidence showed that the purported purchase price of P1,925 was fictitious. The defendant and her mother had no apparent source of income to afford such a sum, as they lived at Sabas Escutin's expense. Furthermore, testimony from witnesses indicated that the defendant and her mother had begged Sabas Escutin to convey the land to the defendant, and that no money was paid during the execution of the document. The Court cited Article 1275 of the Civil Code, which states that contracts without consideration or with an illicit consideration produce no effect whatsoever. The Court also referenced previous rulings in Ocejo, Perez & Co. vs. Flores and Bas, De Belen vs. Collector of Customs and Sheriff of Manila, and Gallion vs. Gayares which established that simulated contracts without consideration are null and void and can be treated as non-existent, especially when executed to defraud others. On the alleged errors regarding paternity: The Court found the defendant's first and second assignments of error to be well-taken. The allegations in the complaint concerning Sabas Escutin being the father of the defendant were deemed immaterial and irrelevant to the action to annul the deed of sale. The Court noted that the purpose of the action was to annul the deed, not to investigate paternity. While the trial court's admission of such evidence was an error, it was not a reversible error because it did not affect the core issue of the contract's validity, which was based on the lack of consideration. The Court also stated that the finding of the trial judge regarding the defendant being an adulterous child was not justified by the evidence.
Main Doctrine
A contract of sale without consideration or with a fictitious consideration is null and void and produces no effect whatsoever, as it is considered simulated and fraudulent.