You are on page 1of 1

Mate vs Court of Appeals 1.

It is plain that consideration existed at the time of the execution of the


G.R. No. 120724-25. May 21, 1998 deed of sale with right of repurchase. It is not only appellant's kindness to
Josefina, being his cousin, but also his receipt of P420,000.00 from her
which impelled him to execute such contract.
FERNANDO T. MATE, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and 2. Furthermore, while petitioner did not receive the P1.4 Million purchase
INOCENCIO TAN, respondents. prices from respondent Tan, he had in his possession a postdated check of
Josie Rey in an equivalent amount precisely to repurchase the two lots on
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 29, 1994 is or before the sixth month.
hereby AFFIRMED. The petition for review is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE for lack of
3. Unfortunately, the two checks issued by Josie Rey were worthless. Both
merit.
were dishonored upon presentment by petitioner with the drawee banks.
4. However, there is absolutely no basis for petitioner to file a complaint
against private respondent Tan and Josie Rey to annul the pacto de
retro sale on the ground of lack of consideration, invoking his failure to
DOCTRINE: The filing of the criminal cases was a tacit admission by petitioner that there was a
encash the two checks.
consideration of the pacto de retro sale
5. Petitioner's cause of action was to file criminal actions against Josie Rey
FACTS under B.P. 22, which he did. The filing of the criminal cases was a tacit
admission by petitioner that there was a consideration of the pacto de
1. On October 6, 1986, Josefina Josie Rey and private respondent Tan went retro sale.
to the residence of petitioner in Tacloban City.
2. Josie solicited his help to stave her off her prosecution by respondent for
violation of B. P. 22.
3. Josie asked petitioner to cede to respondent his 3 lots. Josie explained to
him that he was in no danger of losing his property as they will be
redeemed by her own funds.
4. After a long discussion, petitioner agreed to execute a fictitious deed of
sale with right to repurchase after 6 months. Josie gave petitioner 2 post-
dated checks to be used in redeeming the property.
5. However, the checks were both dishonored. Realizing that he was
swindled, he sent a telegram to Josie, and looked for her in Manila, but she
was nowhere to be found.
6. Petitioner filed a criminal case against Josie for violation of B. P. 22, but
the case was archived since Josie could not be located. Petitioner filed a
case for annulment of contract with damages against Josie and
respondent.
7. Josie was declared in default and the case proceeded against respondent.
Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the
sale.

ISSUE: Whether the sale was null and void for want of consideration

RULING: No. There was, in fact, consideration.


RATIO