Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Diampoc v Buenaventura and RoD

GR 200383

Facts
 Buenaventura, a friend, asked to borrow the owner’s copy of TCT 25044, which was owned by the Diampocs covering
174 sqm land in Taguig) to be used as security for a 1M loan she wished to secure on the condition that Buenaventura
should not sell the prop. Buenaventura promised to give them P300k out of the 1m loan proceeds. Buenaventura
caused them to sign a document w/out giving them the opportunity to read the same. It turned out the be a DoS in
favour of Buenaventura for P200,000. As a result, Buenaventura became the owner of ½ of the subject prop.
 Barangay conciliation proceedings were commenced
 July 2004, petitioner Diampoc and her husband filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale and recovery of
duplicate original copy of title, with dmgs against respondent Buenaventura and the RoD Rizal before the RTC
Contention
1. The DoS was null and void
- The purported DoS is spurious.
- It was secured through fraud or deceit

Buenaventura’s contention
1. No cause of action
2. That an estafa case has been previously filed against her but was dismissed.

 During the trial, on cross-examination, the witnesses confirmed that they signed the Dos but did not read the
contents and that they never appeared before the Notary Public to acknowledge the same and that they never
received any consideration for the alleged sale
 The court found that the plaintiffs fell short of the required evidence to substantiate their allegations
Ruling
1. The DoS being a public doc, it is prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
2. That they received the P200,000 so the 3 requirements: cause, object, consideration was met
 On Appeal, CA affirmed the lower court decision
 A petition for certiorari was then launched

Issue:
 (1) Whether the Sale was null and void

Held:
 No. It is not void
Art 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over
immovable property should be in a public document. However, the failure to observe the proper form does not
render the transaction invalid. The necessity of a public document for said contracts is only for convenience; It is not
essential for validity or enforceability.
Consequently, the private conveyance of the house is valid between the parties