Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    Pascual V Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Alyanna Barre
    1) Sinforoso Pascual filed a case in Pampanga court against Ponciano Pascual and others to annul the sale of a fishpond that was supposedly executed without consideration by their deceased mother Eduarda de los Santos. 2) The defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing the case was a personal action that must be filed where the plaintiff or defendants reside. 3) The court ruled the action was a real action, not a personal action, because the alleged sale was nonexistent with no consideration, making it a case about recovering the fishpond property located in Pampanga.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Pascual V Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Alyanna Barre
    140 views1 page
    1) Sinforoso Pascual filed a case in Pampanga court against Ponciano Pascual and others to annul the sale of a fishpond that was supposedly executed without consideration by their deceased mother Eduarda de los Santos. 2) The defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing the case was a personal action that must be filed where the plaintiff or defendants reside. 3) The court ruled the action was a real action, not a personal action, because the alleged sale was nonexistent with no consideration, making it a case about recovering the fishpond property located in Pampanga.

    Original Description:

    xvsfsd

    Original Title

    Pascual v Pascual

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Sinforoso Pascual filed a case in Pampanga court against Ponciano Pascual and others to annul the sale of a fishpond that was supposedly executed without consideration by their deceased mother Eduarda de los Santos. 2) The defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing the case was a personal action that must be filed where the plaintiff or defendants reside. 3) The court ruled the action was a real action, not a personal action, because the alleged sale was nonexistent with no consideration, making it a case about recovering the fishpond property located in Pampanga.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    140 views1 page

    Pascual V Pascual

    Uploaded by

    Alyanna Barre
    1) Sinforoso Pascual filed a case in Pampanga court against Ponciano Pascual and others to annul the sale of a fishpond that was supposedly executed without consideration by their deceased mother Eduarda de los Santos. 2) The defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing the case was a personal action that must be filed where the plaintiff or defendants reside. 3) The court ruled the action was a real action, not a personal action, because the alleged sale was nonexistent with no consideration, making it a case about recovering the fishpond property located in Pampanga.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sinforoso Pascual v. Ponciano Pascual, et. al 73 Phil.

    561, 562
    FACTS:
    While the proceedings for the probate of the will of the deceased Eduarda de los Santos
    were pending, Sinforoso Pascual, instituted in CFI Pampanga against Ponciano S. Pascual
    and others, an action for the annulment of a contract of sale of a fishpond situated in
    Pampanga, supposedly executed without consideration by said deceased in her lifetime in
    favor of the defendants.
    o The complaint alleges that plaintiff and defendants are all residents of Rizal, and
    are legitimate children of the testatrix, Eduarda de los Santos.
    Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging wrong venue
    o They argue that an action for the annulment of a contract of sale is a personal
    action which must be commenced at the place of residence of either the plaintiff
    or the defendant, at the election of the plaintiff
    ISSUE:
    Is the action brought by plaintiff a real action or a personal action?
    RULING:
    It is a real action. It appearing that the sale made by the deceased to the defendants is
    alleged to be fictitious, with absolutely no consideration, it should be regarded as a
    nonexistent, not merely null, contract. And there being no contract between the deceased
    and the defendants, there is in truth nothing to annul by action.
    The action brought cannot thus be for annulment of contract, but is one for recovery of a
    fishpond, a real action that should be, as it has been, brought in Pampanga, where the
    property is located.

    You might also like