Action For Recovery Of a Sum Of Money

Art. 1387. All contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to have been entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all debts contracted before the donation.

FACTS
Gutierrez Hermanos filed an action for recovery of a sum of money against Oria Hermanos & Co. and herein plaintiff filed an action for recovery also for the same defendant. Before the institution of the suits, members of the Company dissolved their relations and entered into liquidation. Tomas Oria y Balbas acting in behalf of his co-owners entered into a contract with the herein plaintiff for the purpose of transferring and selling all the property which the Oria Hermanos & Co. owned and among the goods stated on that instrument was the steamship Serpantes and which the subject of this litigation. When the Trail Court resolved the action for recovery filed by Gutierrez Hermanos and jugdment was in his favor, The sheriff demanded to Tomas Oria y Balbas to make payment but the latter said there were no funds to pay the same. The sheriff then levied on the steamer, took possession of the same and announced it for public auction. Herein plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the steamer by virtue of the selling of all the properties of the said Company.

ISSUES

is the sale from Oria Hermanos to Manuel Oria y Gonzalez fraudulent against the creditors of Oria Hermanos, making the transfer of the steamship void as to the creditors, and as to Gutierrez Hermanos in particular

HELD
At the time of said sale the value of the assets of Oria Hermanos & Co., as
stated by the partners themselves, was P274,000. The vendee of said sale was a son of Tomas Oria y Balbas and a nephew of the other two persons heretofore mentioned which said three brothers together constituted all of the members of said company.The plaintiff is a young man of 25 years old and has no property before the said selling. The court had laid down the rules in determining whether a there has been fraud prejudicing creditors: 1) consideration of conveyance is fictitious; 2) transfer was made while the suit against him (Tomas Oria y Balbas) was pending; 3) sale by insolvent debtor; 4) evidence of insolvency; 5) transfer of all properties; 6) the sale was made between father and son; 7) and the failure of the vendee to take exclusive possession of the property. The case at bar shows every one of the badges of fraud.

Aquino vs Tañedo
Source: philippinelaw.info

Art. 1380. Contracts validly agreed upon may be rescinded in the cases established by law. (1290)

Art. 1381. The following contracts are rescissible:
(1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things which are the object thereof;

(2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees, if the latter suffer the lesion stated in the preceding number;

(3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them;

(4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority;

(5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to
rescission. (1291a)

Facts:
On May 5, 1913, the plaintiff purchased from the defendant several parcels of land for the price of P45,000 (Exhibit X). In the contract the defendant acknowledged receipt of the sum of P10,000, as a part of this price, the contracting parties stipulating that the rest should be paid as follows: P7,000 in September of the same year, P10,000 in May, 1914, and P18,000 in 1915. By virtue of this contract the plaintiff took possession of the lands purchased. On March 28, 1914, the plaintiff and the defendant, by virtue of another contract (Exhibit Z), agreed to consider the previous contract as rescinded and of no value. As a result of this second agreement, the plaintiff returned to the defendant the lands together with all the documents pertaining thereto. The defendant, on his part, instead of returning the price received by him, subscribed in favor of the plaintiff another document (Exhibit A) in which the acknowledges that he owes the plaintiff the sum of P12,000, of which P2,000, the amount of the interest on P10,000 for one year, was to be paid on or before the 31st of May of the following year, 1915, and, as to the remaining P10,000, it was agreed that the date of their payment would be fixed upon payment of the P2,000. On May 28, 1915, the defendant paid the plaintiff the P2, 000 in accordance with the contract, Exhibit A. Upon this payment being made no time was fixed for the payment of the other P10, 000.

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed against the defendant an action in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac (Civil Case No. 792), wherein he demanded of the defendant the payment of the P10, 000. Before this case was decide, the plaintiff and the defendant stipulated that, in the event that the court should find that the defendant’s obligation was not due, they should move the court merely to fix the period in which this sum should be paid, with the understanding that, if it be not paid within the period fixed by the court, the plaintiff might bring an action against the defendant for its collection, without prejudice to the defenses which the defendant might set up. It appears that this agreement was taken into account by the court, for the recover shows that on September 13, 1915, it rendered judgment in that case merely fixing a period of three months, counting from October 1, 1915, for the payment of this sum of P10, 000 by the defendant.

Issue:
Is the plaintiff obliged to return to the defendant the products to the lands that the plaintiff collected during his possession?

Held:
There is no dispute over the fact that the defendant owes the plaintiff the P10,000 claimed by the latter. The question raised by this appeal is one that relates to the defendant’s counterclaim. The sum demanded in this counterclaim is the value of the product of the lands, collected by the plaintiff during the time he was in possession of them. by virtue of the contract Exhibit X, specifically, from May 5, 1913, until the plaintiff returned the lands to the defendant, on March 28, 1914.

Aside from the foregoing considerations, equity also lies on the plaintiff’s side, because, as the record shows, for the improvement of the land and in order to produce the fruits which he collected, he incurred expenses in an amount such that the products collected by him may, reasonably, be considered equivalent to the interest for tone year on the P10,000 which he had paid to the defendant.

FELIPE vs. HEIRS OF ALDON
Source: philippinelaw.info

Art. 1390. The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties:

(1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent to a contract;

(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.

These contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in
court. They are susceptible of ratification. (n)

FACTS:
Maximo Aldon married Gimena Almosara in1936. The spouses bought several of pieces of land sometime between 1948 and 1950.In 1951, Gimena Almosara sold the lots to the spouses Eduardo Felipe and Hermogena Felipe. The sale was without the consent of her husband, Maximo.On 1976, the heirs of Maximo Aldon filed a complaint against the Felipes.The defendants asserted that they had acquired the lots from the plaintiffs by purchase and subsequent delivery to them.

ISSUES:
WON the wife who sold conjugal lands without her husband’s consent can bring an action for annulment of the sale even after her husband’s death. WON the children-heirs can bring an action for annulment of the sale of the lots in question even after their father’s death.

HELD:
Anent the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The termination of the marriage and the dissolution of the conjugal partnership by the death of Maximo Aldon did not improve the situation of Gimena.What she could not do during the marriage, she cannot do thereafter. The case of Sofia and Salvador Aldon is different. After the death of Maximo they Acquired the right to question the defective contract insofar as it deprived them of their hereditary rights in their Father’s share in the lands . The father’s share is one-half of the lands and their share is two-thirds thereof, one-third pertaining to the widow.