You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No. 104482 January 22, 1996 ISSUES: 1. Is the sale of a future inheritance valid?

BELINDA TAREDO, for herself and in representation NO 2. Was Ricardos registration of the deed of valid?
of her brothers and sisters, and TEOFILA CORPUZ YES
TANEDO, representing her minor daughter VERNA
TANEDO, petitioners vs. THE COURT OF HELD: SC rules in favor of Ricardo.
APPEALS, SPOUSES RICARDO M. TAREDO AND
Pursuant to Art 1347, the contract made in 1962 (sale
TERESITA BARERA TAREDO, respondents
of future inheritance) is not valid and cannot be the
source of any right nor the creator of any obligation
FACTS:
between the parties. (No contract may be entered
into upon a future inheritance except in cases
October 20, 1962: Lazardo Taedo executed a
expressly authorized by law.)
notarized deed of absolute sale in favor of his eldest
brother, Ricardo Taedo, and the latters wife, Teresita However, Article 1544 governs the preferential rights
Barera (private respondents) whereby he conveyed for of vendees in cases of multiple sales. The property in
P1,500 one hectare of his future inheritance from his question is land, an immovable, and ownership shall
parents. belong to the buyer who in good faith registers it rst
in the registry of property. Thus, although the deed of
sale in favor of Ricardo was later than the one in favor
February 28, 1980: Upon the death of his father of Lazaros children, ownership would vest with
Matias, Lazaro made another a davit to rea rm the Ricardo because of the undisputed fact of registration.
1962 sale. On the other hand, petitioners have not registered the
sale to them at all.
January 13, 1981: Lazaro acknowledged therein his
Lazaros children contend that they were in possession
receipt of P 10,000.00 as consideration for the sale.
of the property and that Ricardo never took possession
thereof. As between two purchasers, the one who
February 1981: Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the registered the sale in his favor has a preferred right
same property to his children (petitioners) through a over the other who has not registered his title, even if
deed of sale dated December 29, 1980 the latter is in actual possession of the immovable
property.
On June 7, 1982, Ricardo recorded the Deed of Sale in WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed
their favor in the Registry of Deeds Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Petitioners led a complaint for rescission (plus


damages) of the deeds of sale executed by Lazaro in
favor of Ricardo. They contend that Lolo Matias
desired that whatever inheritance Lazaro would
receive from him should be given to his (Lazaros)
children.

Ricardo (private respondents) however presented in


evidence a Deed of Revocation of a Deed of Sale
wherein Lazaro revoked the sale in favor of his children
for the reason that it was simulated or ctitious -
without any consideration whatsoever.

LAZAROS VERSION: He executed a sworn statement


in favor of his children. BUT he also testi ed that he
sold the property to Ricardo, and that it was a lawyer
who induced him to execute a deed of sale in favor of
his children after giving him ve pesos (P5.00) to buy a
drink. LABO

Trial court ruled in favor of Lazaros children. Ca a


rmed TCs decision.