ONG vs.

ONG
GR No. L-67888 – October 8, 1985
Relova

SUBJECT: When price is false; Artile 1354

FACTS:
 In 1976, Imelda Ong, for and in consideration of 1php and other valuable considerations,
executed in favor of private respondent Sanra Maruzzo, then a minor, a Quitclaim Deed
whereby she transferred, released, assigned and quitclaimed to Sanra, her heirs and assigns,
all her rights, title, interest, and participation in ½ undivided portion of the parcel of land.
 In 1980, Imelda Ong revoked the aforesaid quitclaim and donated the whole property to her
son, Rex Jimenez.
 In 1983, Sandra, through her guardian ad litem Alfredo Ong, filed with the RTC an action
against petitioners, for the recovery of ownership/possession and nullification of the Deed of
Donation over the portion belonging to her.
 The petitioners claimed that the Quitclaim Deed is null and void inasmuch as it is equivalent
to a Deed of Donation, acceptance of which by the donee is necessary to give its validity.
Since Sandra is a minor, she had no legal personality and therefore incapable of accepting
the donation.

RTC: ruled in favor of respondent and held that the quitclaim deed equivalent to a deed of sale and,
hence, there as a valid conveyance in favor of the latter.
IAC: affirmed the RTC decision and held that the Quitclaim Deed is a conveyance of property with a
valid cause or consideration.

 In 1985, respondent Sanra, through her guardian ad litem, filed an Omnibus Motion informing
the SC that she had already reached the age of minority

ISSUE: was there a valid consideration?

HELD: Yes. A careful perusal of the subject deed reveals that the conveyance of the one- half (½)
undivided portion of the above-described property was for and in consideration of the One (P 1.00)
Peso and the other valuable considerations (emphasis supplied) paid by private respondent Sandra
Maruzzo through her representative, Alfredo Ong, to petitioner Imelda Ong. Stated differently, the
cause or consideration is not the One (P1.00) Peso alone but also the other valuable considerations.
As aptly stated by the Appellate Court-

Although the cause is not stated in the contract it is presumed that it is existing unless the debtor
proves the contrary (Article 1354, CC). It is a legal presumption of sufficient cause or consideration
supporting a contract even if such cause is not state therein (Article 1354, NCC). This presumption
cannot be overcome by a simple assertion of lack of consideration especially when the contract itself
states that consideration was given, and the same has been reduced into a public instrument with all
due formalities and solemnities. To overcome the presumption of consideration the alleged lack of
consideration must be shown by preponderance of evidence in a proper action.

Under Article 1350 of the Civil Code, bad faith and inadequacy of the monetary consideration do not
render a conveyance inexistent, for the assignor’s liberality may be sufficient cause for a valid
contract. Whereas fraud or bad faith may render either rescissible or voidable contract, although valid
until annulled, a contract concerning an object certain entered into with a cause and with the consent
of the contracting parties.

The decision of the IAC is affirmed.