Martin, Michael Alexey D.R.

Sale of undivided interest

Sales / 2B Article 1471
Case Digest Ting Ho v. Teng Gui

Felix Ting Ho v Vicente Teng Gui

G.R. No. 130115, 16 July 2008
FACTS:
The petitioners in the case are siblings Felix Ting Ho Jr., Merla Ting Ho Braden, Juana Ting Ho
and Lydia Ting Ho Belenzo. Respondent in the case is their brother Vicente Teng Gui.
The case started when the petitioners filed an action for partition for the parcel of land and
improvements owned by their father Felix Ting Ho. They claimed that such land should be
partitioned between them and should form part of the estate of their deceased father.
Petitioners claim that the following properties be part of their father’s estate:
a. A commercial land
b. A 2 storey residential house on the commercial land
c. A 2 storey commercial building which rented both 1st and 2nd floors
d. A sari-sari store
Petitioners claim that the properties are titled and declared for tax under the respondent for the
benefit of their father because their father was a Chinese resident who is forbidden from owning
lands. And the respondent took possession of the properties for his benefit and their prejudice
from the estate.
Respondent answered saying that their father sold the commercial and residential buildings to his
sister-in-law Victoria Cabasal and the bakery to his brother-in-law Gregorio Fontela. And when he
became of legal age, he bought the properties from the in-laws with sales patents.
The land originally was owned by Felix Ting Ho, who at time of acquisition is already married to
Leonila Cabasa who was a Filipino citizen. He acquired the land by virtue of permission form the
US Naval Reservation Office. The family lived there until the parent’s death. Before his death,
Felix Ting Ho executed deeds of sale of his properties named to the sister-in-law and brother-in-
law. When he became of legal age, it was then sold to Vicente Teng Gui who chose Filipino
citizenship. After acquiring ownership, the father Felix Ting HO executed an Affidavit of Transfer,
Relinquishment and Renouncement of Rights and Interest. Vicente Teng Gui filed a
miscellaneous sales application to Bureau of Lands for the properties.
RTC sided with the plaintiffs stating that the main intention of the sale is to donate the properties
to Vicente Teng Gui.
CA sided with plaintiffs stating that Felix Ting Ho cannot dispose the property because he was
not the owner due to being a Chinese citizen.
ISSUES:

1|Page
Martin, Michael Alexey D.R. Sale of undivided interest
Sales / 2B Article 1471
Case Digest Ting Ho v. Teng Gui

1. Whether or not both Lot and the properties erected should be included in the estate
of Felix Ting Ho
RULING:
1. Yes the properties should form part of the estate of Felix Ting Ho
-First the land was never Felix Ting Ho because he was a Chinese citizen. According to Article
13 Section 1 of 1935 Constitution. Section 1. All agricultural timber, and mineral lands of the public
domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy
and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition,
exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration
of the Government established under this Constitution.
-In fairness to the defendant, although the Deeds of Sale executed by Felix Ting Ho regarding the
improvements in favor of Victoria Cabasal and Gregorio Fontela and the subsequent transfer of
the same by Gregorio Fontela and Victoria Cabasal to the defendant are all simulated, yet,
pursuant to Article 1471 of the New Civil Code it can be assumed that the intention of Felix Ting
Ho in such transaction was to give and donate the improvements to his eldest son the defendant
Vicente Teng Gui. Such claim is based on Article 1471 of Civil Code.
Article 1471. If the price is simulated, the sale is void, but the act may be shown to have been in
reality a donation, or some other act or contract.
Court holds that the reliance of the trial court on the provisions of Article 1471 of the Civil Code to
conclude that the simulated sales were a valid donation to the respondent is misplaced because
its finding was based on a mere assumption when the law requires positive proof. Respondent
was unable to show, and the records are bereft of any evidence, that the simulated sales of the
properties were intended by the deceased to be a donation to him. Thus, the Court holds that the
two-storey residential house, two-storey residential building and sari-sari store form part of the
estate of the late spouses Felix Ting Ho and Leonila Cabasal, entitling the petitioners to a four-
fifths (4/5) share thereof.
DISPOSITION:
1. Plaintiff-appellants’ complaint is dismissed
2. The 2 storey commercial building, two storey residential building and sari-sari store form
part of the estate of deceased spouses
3. The 2 storey commercial building, 2 storey residential building and sari-sari store is
partitioned

2|Page