Campos v Pastrana Facts: Respondents filed a case against Carlito for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Preliminary

Mandatory Injunction involving a fishpond. On November 27, 1990, the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Branch 16, rendered a Decision finding Carlito to have retained possession of the fishpond notwithstanding the expiration of the contract of lease and ordering him to pay rentals, the value of the produce and damages to the herein respondents. The Decision became final and executory and a Writ of Execution was issued on February 7, 1995. Subsequently, on September 19, 1995, an Alias Writ of Execution was also issued. Both were returned unsatisfied as per Sheriffs Return of Service dated November 14, 1995. When the respondents were about to levy these properties to satisfy the judgment, they discovered that spouses Carlito and Margarita Campos transferred these lots to their children petitioners Rosemarie and Jesus Campos by virtue of Deeds of Absolute Sale dated October 18, 1985. Issue: Whether or not the sale can be a subject of rescission Held: In the instant case, it had been declared the Deeds of Absolute Sale to be fictitious and inexistent for being absolutely simulated contracts. An action to rescind is founded upon and presupposes the existence of a contract. A contract which is null and void is no contract at all and hence could not be the subject of rescission.