Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO A. TONGOY v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 196083 2015-11-11	MILAGROS C. REYES v. FELIX P. ASUNCION PERALTA, J.
Lacking, therefore, in an absolutely simulated contract is consent which is essential to a valid and enforceable contract.[13] Thus, where a person, in order to place his property beyond the reach of his creditors, simulates a transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to divest himself of his title and control of the property; hence, the deed of transfer is but a sham.[14]
	GR No. 165748 2011-09-14	HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA MENDOZA, J.
Lacking, therefore, in an absolutely simulated contract is consent which is essential to a valid and enforceable contract.[14] Thus, where a person, in order to place his property beyond the reach of his creditors, simulates a transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to divest himself of his title and control of the property; hence, the deed of transfer is but a sham.[15] Similarly, in this case, Alfonso simulated a transfer to Policronio purely for taxation purposes, without intending to transfer ownership over the subject lands.
	GR No. 165748 2011-09-14	HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA MENDOZA, J.
5) The inexistence or absolute nullity of a contract cannot be invoked by a person whose interests are not directly affected.[22]
	GR No. 165748 2011-09-14	HEIRS OF POLICRONIO M. URETA v. HEIRS OF LIBERATO M. URETA MENDOZA, J.
This is one of the most fundamental characteristics of void or inexistent contracts.[44]