Jocson Vs Ca pl2u

*lifted from idoub MOISES JOCSON, petitioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AGUSTINA JOCSONVASQUEZ, ERNESTO VASQUEZ, respondents
 Petition for Certiorari to review CA decision [February 16, 1989] Facts: Spouses Emilio Jocson & Alejandra Poblete had 2 children: Moises Jocson & Agustina Jocson-Vasquez. Agustina is married to Ernesto Vasquez. Alejandra died intestate. April 1, 1972 – Emilio died intestate. June 20, 1973: Moises filed complaint, assailing validity of 3 documents 
 executed by Emilio during his lifetime. He prays that the following be declared null & void and that the properties involved be partitioned bet him & his sister: 1.

Deed of Sale executed July 27, 1968 wherein Emilio sold to Agustina 6 
 parcels of land in Naic, Cavite for P10,000.00. Deed included Emilio’s manifestation that the lands was sold at a low price because it was his loving, helpful & thoughtful daughter who bought the property. He says his son possesses such qualities too. He further claims that the sale did not violate any law & that he did not touch his wife’s properties. He acknowledged receipt of payment.

2.

Deed of Sale executed July 27, 1968, selling 2 rice mills & a camalig in Naic, Cavite to Agustina for P5,000.00. Emilio acknowledged receipt too.

3.

Deed of Extrajudicial Partition & Adjudication w/Sale executed March 9, 1969 wherein Emilio & Agustina, excluding Moises, extrajudicially partitioned unsettled estate of Alejandra dividing such into 3. Emilio sold his share to Agustina. All documents were executed before a notary public. Nos. 1 & 2 were ed w/the of Deeds. Old certificates were cancelled & new certificates issued in the name of Agustina. Moises allegations:
 1. #1 is null & void because his father’s consent was obtained by fraud, 
 deceit, undue pressure, influence & other illegal machinations. He also alleges that property was sold for a simulated price considering that his sister had no work or livelihood of her own. Also, he claims that the contract is fictitious, simulated & fabricated.

1.

Same allegations re #2 & #3 with additional allegation that he was deliberately excluded & they intended to defraud him of his legitimate share. He also claims that defendants were employed in their parents’ business & they must have used business earnings or simulated consideration in order to purchase the properties.

2.

No real sale between dad & daughter living under same roof.

3.

Dad didn’t need money since sold properties were all income-producitng.

4.

#1 & #2 are unliquidated conjugal properties that Emilio can’t validly sell.

5.

#3: he only questions sale of dad’s share to sister but not extrajudicial 
 partition. RTC: decided in favor of petitioner. Documents were simulated & fictitious 
 because: 1) no proof that Agustina did pay for the properties, 2) prices were grossly inadequate tantamount to lack of consideration at all, 3) improbability of sale considering circumstances. Designed to exclude Moises. Declared #1 & #2 properties as conjugal by virtue of registration papers w/c declared: “Emilio Jocson, married to Alejandra Poblete.” Ordered registration of prop to 2 children. CA: reversed. Nos. 1 & 2 barred by prescription because annulment of contract based on fraud must be filed 4 yrs from discovery of such w/c begins on the date of the registration w/the of Deeds. All documents actually & intended to be binding & effective against Emilio. Proof of such: issuance of new titles. Partition w/sale in #3 is valid since it was done in accordance w/New CC Art. 996 on intestate succession & Moises’ 1/3 has not been prejudiced.

ISSUES & RATIO:
 1. WON suit is solely based on fraud and as such is barred by prescription NO. Contract tainted by vitiated consent such as when consent’s obtained by fraud is voidable (CC Art. 1330) & action for annulment must be filed w/in 4 yrs from time of discovery of fraud (CC Art. 1391 par.4). Discovery means the time when contract was ed w/ of Deeds (Gerona vs. De Guzman). If this was the only consideration, then it is barred by prescription. But he further assailed that sale was w/o consideration since amount paid were merely simulated. Contracts w/o cause or consideration produce no effect whatsoever (CC Art. 1352). A sale w/simulated price is void (CC Art. 1471 & 1409[3]) and action for declaration of its nullity does not prescribe (CC Art. 1410). 2. WON sales were w/o consideration. NO. Since Moises alleges such, it is incumbent upon him to prove his allegations, especially since documents show that his dad (vendor) acknowledged receipt of price & they are notarized. He failed to do so and thus he was not able to overcome the presumption that a contract is with consideration (CC Art. 1354). Even his own witness contradicted his claim that his sister & her husband had no source of income. Witness Bagnas said that Agustina & Ernesto were into buy & sell of palay & rice. Even he himself said that he didn’t know if his sister had other businesses. Agustina testified that she was into buy & sell even prior to her marriage. 3. WON prices were simulated NO. No proof of inadequacy of price. In fact, purchase price was higher than assessed value (#1: P10k vs. P8920.00, #2 P5k vs. P3,500, and

#3 P8k vs. P24,840.00). Besides difference bet market value & purchase price is understandable considering father’s filial love for his daughter. Gross inadequacy of price alone does not affect the contract except perhaps an indication of defect in consent (CC Art. 1470). No proof of defective consent. 4. WON sale is improbable. NO. Improbability of sale is purely speculative. Not relevant considering that all essential requirements for contract are clearly present: consent, object & cause.
 5. WON properties in #1 & #2 were conjugal properties of Emilio & wife. NO. CC Art. 160 provides that all property of marriage is presumed to belong to unless proven otherwise. Condition sine qua non (main thing) would be for party who invokes this to prove that properties were indeed acquired during the marriage (Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin). Thus, Moises has to present proof that properties in question were indeed obtained during the marriage of their parents before he can invoke the presumption. However, titles used by RTC in declaring properties as (see RTC decision in bold letters) are insufficient proof. Doesn’t say when properties were obtained. Acquisition of title (actual owning of land) is different from registration. Possible that Emilio acquired properties when he was still a bachelor & only ed such after marriage. “Married to” phrase is a mere description of Emilio’s civil status at the time of registration (Litam v Rivera). It should be interpreted as Emilo is the owner, property ed in his name alone & that he is married. Consistent w/principle that registration of property in name of only one spouse doesn’t negate possibility of it being conjugal (Bucoy vs. Paulino). Both require sufficient, clear & convincing proof to rebut the presumption. Moises should have presented sufficient proof to show that properties were acquired during the marriage so that he may enjoy the presumption under Art. 160. Due to lack of proof, presumption does not exist, thus, properties are considered exclusive to Emilio. HOLDING: Petition dismissed. CA affirmed.