Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-67888 October 8, 1985
IMELDA ONG, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
ALREDO ONG, ET AL., respondents.
Faustino Y Bautista and Fernando M. Mangubat for private respondent.

RELO!A, J.:
This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the decision, dated !une "#, $%&', of the
Inter(ediate )ppellate *ourt, in )*+,.R. No. *V+#$-'&, affir(in. the /ud.(ent of the
Re.ional Trial *ourt of Ma0ati, Metro Manila. Petitioner I(elda On. assails the
interpretation .iven b1 respondent )ppellate *ourt to the 2uestioned 3uitclai( Deed.
Records sho that on Februar1 "4, $%-5 I(elda On., for and in consideration of One
6P$.##7 Peso and other valuable considerations, e8ecuted in favor of private
respondent Sandra Maru99o, then a (inor, a 3uitclai( Deed hereb1 she transferred,
released, assi.ned and forever 2uit+clai(ed to Sandra Maru99o, her heirs and assi.ns,
all her ri.hts, title, interest and participation in the ON:+;)<F 6=7 undivided portion of
the parcel of land, particularl1 described as follos>
) parcel of land 6<ot $#+? of the subdivision plan 6<R*7 Psd $4-&'$,
bein. a portion of <ot $#, ?loc0 $&, Psd+$@"&&, <R* 6,<R*7 Record
No. "#"%, situated in the Municipalit1 of Ma0ati, Province of Ri9al,
Island of <u9on ... containin. an area of ON: ;ANDR:D )ND
TB:NTC FIV: 6$"47 S3A)R: M:T:RS, (ore or less.
On Nove(ber $%, $%&#, I(elda On. revo0ed the aforesaid Deed of 3uitclai( and,
thereafter, on !anuar1 "#, $%&" donated the hole propert1 described above to her
son, Re8 On.+!i(ene9.
On !une "#, $%&@, Sandra Maru99o, throu.h her .uardian 6ad litem) )lfredo On., filed
ith the Re.ional Trial *ourt of Ma0ati, Metro Manila an action a.ainst petitioners, for
the recover1 of onershipDpossession and nullification of the Deed of Donation over the
portion belon.in. to her and for )ccountin..
In their responsive pleadin., petitioners clai(ed that the 3uitclai( Deed is null and
void inas(uch as it is e2uivalent to a Deed of Donation, acceptance of hich b1 the
donee is necessar1 to .ive it validit1. Further, it is averred that the donee, Sandra
Maru99o, bein. a (inor, had no le.al personalit1 and therefore incapable of acceptin.
the donation.
Apon ad(ission of the docu(ents involved, the parties filed their responsive
(e(oranda and sub(itted the case for decision.
On Dece(ber $", $%&@, the trial court rendered /ud.(ent in favor of respondent
Maru99o and held that the 3uitclai( Deed is e2uivalent to a Deed of Sale and, hence,
there as a valid conve1ance in favor of the latter.
Petitioners appealed to the respondent Inter(ediate )ppellate *ourt. The1 reiterated
their ar.u(ent belo and, in addition, contended that the One 6P$.##7 Peso
consideration is not a consideration at all to sustain the rulin. that the Deed of
3uitclai( is e2uivalent to a sale.
On !une "#, $%&', respondent Inter(ediate )ppellate *ourt pro(ul.ated its Decision
affir(in. the appealed /ud.(ent and held that the 3uitclai( Deed is a conve1ance of
propert1 ith a valid cause or considerationE that the consideration is the One 6P$.##7
Peso hich is clearl1 stated in the deed itselfE that the apparent inade2uac1 is of no
(o(ent since it is the usual practice in deeds of conve1ance to place a no(inal
a(ount althou.h there is a (ore valuable consideration .iven.
Not satisfied ith the decision of the respondent Inter(ediate )ppellate *ourt,
petitioners ca(e to As 2uestionin. the interpretation .iven b1 the for(er to this
particular docu(ent.
On March $4, $%&4, respondent Sandra Maru99o, throu.h her .uardian ad
litem )lfredo On., filed an O(nibus Motion infor(in. this *ourt that she has reached
the a.e of (a/orit1 as evidenced b1 her ?irth *ertificate and she pra1s that she be
substituted as private respondent in place of her .uardian ad litem )lfredo On.. On
)pril $4, $%&4, the *ourt issued a resolution .rantin. the sa(e.
) careful perusal of the sub/ect deed reveals that the conve1ance of the one+ half 6=7
undivided portion of the above+described propert1 as for and in consideration of the
1
One 6P $.##7 Peso and the other valuable considerations 6e(phasis supplied7 paid b1
private respondent Sandra Maru99o throu.h her representative, )lfredo On., to
petitioner I(elda On.. Stated differentl1, the cause or consideration is not the One
6P$.##7 Peso alone but also the other valuable considerations. )s aptl1 stated b1 the
)ppellate *ourt+
... althou.h the cause is not stated in the contract it is presu(ed that
it is e8istin. unless the debtor proves the contrar1 6)rticle $@4' of the
*ivil *ode7. One of the disputable presu(ptions is that there is a
sufficient cause of the contract 6Section 4, 6r7, Rule $@$, Rules of
*ourt7. It is a le.al presu(ption of sufficient cause or consideration
supportin. a contract even if such cause is not stated therein 6)rticle
$@4', Ne *ivil *ode of the Philippines.7 This presu(ption cannot be
overco(e b1 a si(ple assertion of lac0 of consideration especiall1
hen the contract itself states that consideration as .iven, and the
sa(e has been reduced into a public instru(ent ith all due
for(alities and sole(nities. To overco(e the presu(ption of
consideration the alle.ed lac0 of consideration (ust be shon b1
preponderance of evidence in a proper action. 6Sa(anilla vs,
*a/uco(, et al., $#- Phil. '@"7.
The e8ecution of a deed purportin. to conve1 onership of a realt1 is in itself pri(a
facie evidence of the e8istence of a valuable consideration, the part1 alle.in. lac0 of
consideration has the burden of provin. such alle.ation. 6*aballero, et al. vs.
*aballero, et al., 6*)7, '4 O.,. "4@57.
Moreover, even .rantin. that the 3uitclai( deed in 2uestion is a donation, )rticle -'$
of the *ivil *ode provides that the re2uire(ent of the acceptance of the donation in
favor of (inor b1 parents of le.al representatives applies onl1 to onerous and
conditional donations here the donation (a1 have to assu(e certain char.es or
burdens 6)rticle -"5, *ivil *ode7. The acceptance b1 a le.al .uardian of a si(ple or
pure donation does not see( to be necessar1 6Pere9 vs. *alin.o, *)+'# O.,. 4@7.
Thus, Supre(e *ourt ruled in Fapunan vs. *asilan and *ourt of )ppeals, 6$#% Phil.
&&%7 that the donation to an incapacitated donee does not need the acceptance b1 the
laful representative if said donation does not contain an1 condition. In si(ple and
pure donation, the for(al acceptance is not i(portant for the donor re2uires no ri.ht to
be protected and the donee neither underta0es to do an1thin. nor assu(es an1
obli.ation. The 3uitclai( no in 2uestion does not i(pose an1 condition.
The above pronounce(ent of respondent )ppellate *ourt finds support in the rulin. of
this Court in Morales Development Co., Inc. vs. CA, "- S*R) '&', hich states that
Gthe (a/or pre(ise thereof is based upon the fact that the consideration stated in the
deeds of sale in favor of Re1es and the )bellas is P$.##. It is not unusual, hoever, in
deeds of conve1ance adherin. to the )n.lo+Sa8on practice of statin. that the
consideration .iven is the su( of P$.##, althou.h the actual consideration (a1 have
been (uch (ore. Moreover, assu(in. that said consideration of P$.## is suspicious,
this circu(stance, alone, does not necessaril1 /ustif1 the inference that Re1es and the
)bellas ere not purchasers in .ood faith and for value. Neither does this inference
arrant the conclusion that the sales ere null and void ab initio. Indeed, bad faith and
inade2uac1 of the (onetar1 consideration do not render a conve1ance ine8istent, for
the assi.norHs liberalit1 (a1 be sufficient cause for a valid contract 6)rticle $@4#, *ivil
*ode7, hereas fraud or bad faith (a1 render either rescissible or voidable, althou.h
valid until annulled, a contract concernin. an ob/ect certain entered into ith a cause
and ith the consent of the contractin. parties, as in the case at bar.G
B;:R:FOR:. the appealed decision of the Inter(ediate )ppellate *ourt should be,
as it is hereb1 )FFIRM:D, ith costs a.ainst herein petitioners.
SO ORD:R:D.
eehan!ee "Chairman), Melencio#$errera, %lana, De la Fuente and %ata&o, ''., concur.
(utierre), 'r., '., in the result.
2