7/24/2019 Suntay vs. CA Case Digest

1/3

Suntay vs. CANATURE

Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Amended Decisionof respondent Court of Appeals and of its Resolution

denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.FACTS

- Federico Suntay is a wealthy land owner and rice millerfrom Bulacan. e owned a !"##$ s%uare&meter land inBulacan. n it was a rica mill" a warehouse and otherimprovements.& Federico applied as a miller&contractor of the then(ational Rice and Com Corporation )(AR*C+. is

application was prepared ,y his nephew lawyer RafaelSuntay. But it was disapproved ,ecause at that time hewas tied up w- several unpaid loans.& For purposes of circumvention" he had thought ofallowing Rafael to mae the application for him. Rafaelprepared an a,solute deed of sale where,y Federico" forand in consideration of P/0" 000.00 conveyed to Rafaelsaid parcel of land with all its e1isting structures.

& Federico claims that the sale was merely2ctitious-simulated and has ,een e1ecuted only forpurposes of accommodation.& 3ess than three months after this conveyance" Rafaelsold it ,ac to Federico for the same amount of P/0"000.*t was notari4ed ,y Atty. erminio 5. Flores.& owever" the said document was not the said deed ofsale ,ut a certain 6real estate mortgage of a parcel of

land to secure a loan of P7"!00.00 in favor of theagonoy Rural Ban. *t could not ,e found in the notarialregister as well& Federico through his new counsel re%uested that Rafaelhave 8C8 (o. 8&79:#; so that he can have the counter

7/24/2019 Suntay vs. CA Case Digest

2/3

deed of sale in favor registered in his. But the re%uestwas turned down.& So Federico

7/24/2019 Suntay vs. CA Case Digest

3/3

and Federico is an unmistaa,le toen of simulation. *thas ,een o,served that fraud is generally accompanied,y trust.& 8he late Rafael insisted that the sale to him of his

uncle's property was in fact a 6dacion en pago6 insatisfaction of Federico's unpaid attorney's fees. But suchclaim cannot prosper. e did not even tell Federico thathe considered such to ,e his fee. Federico was also li%uidenough to pay him.& All circumstances point to the conclusion that such wassimulated transaction.Ratio A contract of purchase and sale is void and

produces no e=ect whatsoever where the same is withoutcause or consideration in that the purchase price" whichappears thereon as paid" has in fact never ,een paid ,ythe purchaser to the vendor two veritable legal

presumptions: 2rst" that there was sucientconsideration for the contract and" second" that it was theresult of a fair and regular private transaction. 8hesepresumptions if shown to hold" infer prima facie the

transaction