MATEA E.

RODRIGUEZ, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
SUSANA DE LA CRUZ, ESCOLASTICO DE LA CRUZ, AND PROCESA DE LA CRUZ, defendants-appellees.
Nature of the case: amendment complaint for the purpose of recovering certain pieces or parcels of land
Facts: Palintiff, Matea Rodriguez filed an amendment complaint in the CFI of the Province of Albay for the purpose
of recovering certain pieces or parcels of land. It was alleged in the complaint that she was the owner of the said
lands and that she acquired those during her first marriage from her deceased father. Hilarion de la Cruz, her 2 nd
husband and she had permission from him to commence this action against the defendants.Hilarion had no interest
or right in said property She had been in possession of the lands and enjoyed the income and fruits from 1882 to
1905. In February 20 1905, defendants commenced an action against Hiarion de la Cruz against the partition of the
lands described in the cause. On 29th of March 1905, the judge of the said court adjudged in favour of the
defendant. The defendant filed a special denial, denying certain parts of the facts set out in the complaint and
admitting certain other facts.
RTC: In favour of the defendants found as fact from the evidence adduced during the trial that the lands described in
the complaint were acquired by Hilarion de la Cruz, the father of the decendants, during his married life with his 1 st
wife, Andrea de Leon and said lands were nit inherited by the resent defendant from her father, Alejo Rodriguez.
Issue: 1. W/N lower court erred the fact that plaintiff did not intervene in said action for partition.
2. W/N the lower court erred in declaring Hilario de la Cruz was the owner of the lands in question.
3. W/N the lower court erred in finding from the evidence that Hilarion de la Cruz has acquired said lands
during the existence of his marriage relation with Andre de Leon.
RATIO: In the first error, for the reason that Matea had not been made party in the action for partition bet defendants
and their father, her interests was in NO was prejudiced by the decision in that cause
In the 2nd error, after the marriage of Hilarion to Matea f]he commenced to administer the property in question. No
provision in the CC which prohibits husband from administering the property on behalf of his wife and it cannot be
concluded that the property which he administers for a long time is his.
In the 3rd error, after the examination of evidence , the lands in question were acquired by Matea by inheritance
during her 1st marriage from her deceased father, Alejo Rodriguez.
RULING: RTC judgement should be reversed without any costs and it is hereby ordered that the said cause be
remanded to the lower court with direction that a judgment be entered declaring that the said plaintiffs is the owner
and is entitled to the possession, as against the said defendants, of the lands described i the amended complaint
presented in this cause.
DOCTRINE: Section 277 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Civil Actions provides, among other things, that
proceedings in a cause against one person can not affect the rights of another.
Article 1382 of the Civil Code provides that the wife shall retain the ownership of her property which she brings to
the marriage relation. It is true that article 1384 prescribes that she shall have the management of the property,
unless she was delivered the same to her husband by means of a public document, providing that he may
administer said property; but it can not be claimed

PEOPLE BANK AND TRUST CO., Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE CITY OF
MANILA, Respondent-Appellee.
Nature of the case: Appeal taken by the Peoples Bank and Trust Co. from the judgement rendered by CFI Manila
denying the registration of a certain instrument
FACTS: Dominga Angles and Manuel Sandoval were married on Octiber 26, 1933. Manuel resides in Palawan
whom Dominga lives separate and apart. She executed an instrument entitled Agreement and Declaration of
Trust in favour of the Peoples Bank and Trust Co. She conveyed in trust her paraphermal property consisting
of 3 parels of land together with 2 buildings. The said Trust was instituted in order that the lands would be
subdivided into small lots which would be sold in cash or instalment. The instrument was presented to the
registry of Deeds in the City if Manila for registration, which was denied by the said official. Petitioner brought
the matter before the CFI of Manila which sustained the action of the register of deeds and denied the
registration applied for.
RTC based its decision on the alleged ground that according to the terms of the contract the trustee was
authorized to collect the fruits of the paraphernal property while lots remained unsold or unalienated to other
persons. Provisions of Articles 1385 and 1401 (3) of the civil code such fruits are considered conjugal property,
the management of which corresponds to the husband, in accordance with article 1412and husband did not
intervene in nor give his consent to the instrument in question, the same is null and void therefore not
susceptible of registration.
ISSUE: W/N Dominga Angeles need not marital consent for the execution of the instrument for the
administration of her peripheral properties.
RULING: Failure to comply with the requisite prescribed in Art 1387 which was in force before Art 3922 of
Philippine legislature, does not render the contract, executed by the wife without permission of the husband,
null and void ab initio but mere VOIDABLE and the right to action exclusively belongs to the husband and heirs.
Granting such public instrument defective is nevertheless susceptible of registration.
Decision of the appealed is hereby reversed, and the register of deeds for the City of Manila is hereby ordered to
register the instrument in question, upon payment for corresponding legal fees, without special pronouncement
as to the costs. So ordered.
RATIO: Art. 1384 (CC) wife has the management of the parapheral property which has not been delivered to
her husband before notary. There is no question that she has right to collect the rents thereof and that she may
delegate such power to another person. To deny her such power would tantamount to converting her from
admin into mere collector of rents.
Under Arts. 1385 and 1401 (3)(CC) husband has the management of the paraphernal property on the ground
that administration of the conjugal partnership belongs to him. In Art 1384, it is the wife to which she has not
delivered to her husband before a notary, it follows the fruit and therefore, remain unliquidated on the ground
they answer for the necessary and indispensable expenses of their administration and preservation.

MOISES JOCSON, petitioner,

vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS, AGUSTINA JOCSON-VASQUEZ, ERNESTO VASQUEZ, respondents.
Nature of the case: Review for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court of the decision of CA
Facts: Petitioner, Moises Jocson and respondent Agustina Jocson-Vasquez are the only surviving offsprings of the
spouses Emilio Jocson and Alejandra Poblete while respondent Ernesto Vasquez is the husband of Agustina.
Alejandra predeceased her husband without intestate being settled. Subsequently, Emilio died intestate also.There
were 3 documents that was conveyed, by sale to Agustina that apparently covers all of his properties, including the
1/3 share in estate of his wife. Petitioner prays that the 3 documents be declared null and void. Documents were
presented by Moises Jocson. First, Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa (exhibit 3) to which Emilio sold his 6 parcels of
land to Agustina for P10,000.00. Emilio acknowledged the receipt from the purchase. Second (exhibit 4), Kasulutan
ng Ganap na Bilihan to which Emilio sold 2 rice mills and a camarin to Agustina for P5000.00. Third, Deed of
Extrajudicial Partiton and Adjucation with Sale (exhibit 2), to which Emilio and Agustina without the participation of
and intervention of Moises extrajudicially partitioned the unsettled estate, dividing the same into 3 parts, 1/3 each of
the heirs namely: Emiilio Jocson, Agustina Jocson-Vasquez and Moises Jocson. Emilio sold his share to Agustina
for P8000.00. Emilio acknowledged the receipt. These documents were executed before the notary public. Exhibit 3
and 4 were registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds.Transfer certificates of the title covering the properties
in the name of Emilio Jocson married to Alejandra Poblete were cancelled and new certificates were issued in the
name of Agustina Jocson-Vasquez. Exhibit 2 was not registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds. Petitoner
alleged that there can be no real sale bet. Father and daughter who lived together under the same roof. Further,
petitioner claimed that the propertied mentioned in Exhibit 3 and 4 are unliquidated properties of the Jocson spouse,
thus cannot be validly sell. In Exhibit 2, petitioner questions not the extrajudicial partition but only the sale of the
father to Agustina of the formers 1/3 share.
RTC: It declared that the considerations in the documents are merely fictitious because there was no showing that
Agustina paid the properties: the prices were grossly in adequate which is tantamount to lack of consideration at all;
the improbability of the sale bet Emilio and Agustina taking into consideration the circumstances obtaining bet the
parties were donations designed by to exclude Moises Jocson from participating.
CA: Reversed the trial courts decision. In exhibits 3 & 4 are concerned the appellees complaint for annulment,
which is based on fraud, undue influence is now barred by prescription of 4 years from the discovery of the fraud.
Date of registration: July 29, 1968. Date of complaint: June 20, 1973.
Exhibits 2,3 & 4 are decisively NOT simulated or fictitious contracts since Emilio actually and intended them to be
effective and binding against him as to divest him of the full dominion and ownership over properties to which all his
titles were cancelled and new ones were issued to appellant Agustina.
In exhibit 2, the same is valid and subsisting, partition sale affecting 2/3 of the subject properties have been made in
accordance wih Art 996 of New CC and 1/3 of appellees instestate succession has not been prejudiced.

ISSUE: W/N CA erred in concluding that the suit for annulment filed by the petitioner in RTC is based in fraud and
not inexistence and nullity because of it being fictitious and simulated
W/N CA erred in concluding that the filed complaint filed by petitioner in RTC is prescribed.
W/N CA erred in declaring as inexistence and null and void the contracts
RULING: Petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
RATIO: In 1st and 2nd errors according to Art 1352 of the CC, contracts w/o cause produce no effect whatsoever. A
contract of sale with simulated price is void (Art. 1471; Art 1409 [3]) and an action for declaration of nullity does not
prescribe. Judicial declaration of nullity of Exhibit 3 & 4 on the ground of simulated price is not prescribed.
Burden of proof is in showing the contracts lack consideration rests on who alleged it. Petitioner has not sufficiently
proven that the questioned documents are without considerarion. Petitioner alleged that Agustina had no other
income other than from helping in the management of the family business. Isaac Bagnas, a witness, testified that
Agustina and his husband were engaged in buying and selling palay and rice. Amazingly, petitioner and his wife did
not know whether or not Agustina was engaged in such business. It is clear that petitioner miserably failed to prove
his allegation.
Neither may the contract be declared void because of alleged inadequacy in price. There was no showing that the
prices where grossly inadequate. Gross adequacy of price alone does not affect a contract of sale, except that it
may indicate a defect in the consent or the parties intended a donation or some other contract and there was
nothing in records that indicate defect in Emilios consent.
In exhibits 3 & 4 which assailed by petitioner as conjugal properties of Emilio and Alejandra. Moises presented
sufficient proof to show that the disputed properties were acquired during his parents coverture. Under Art 160 said
property would be exclusivelyto Emilio Jocson. There be no proof of the condition sine qua non for the application of
presumption does not exist.