Maria Antonia

Siguan v. Rosa Lim

Magsino, Patricia Marie C.

Facts:
Aug. 25 & 26, 1990 Rosa Lim issued two promissory notes in the
sums of Php 300,000 and Php 241, 668 both payable to cash

Upon presentment by petitioner Siguan with the drawee bank, these

checks were dishonored
Account Closed
Demands to make good the checks were futile

Siguan filed a criminal case against Lim in violation of BP. 22

Dec. 29, 1992 RTC convicted Lim (case is pending with the Court for
review)

Jul. 31, 1990 Lim was convicted by RTC of estafa in a criminal case
filed by Victoria Suarez
CA affirmed
On appeal SC acquitted Lim but held her civilly liable

Jul. 2, 1991 a Deed of Donation, supposedly executed on Aug. 10,

1989, in favor of Lims children; Linde, Ingrid, anf Neil was registered
with the Office of Register of Deeds
New transfer certificates were issued in the names of the children

Jun. 23, 1993 Siguan filed an accion pauliana against Lim and her
children to rescind the Deed of Donation and to declare the new
transfer certificates of title as null and void

Siguan is claiming that Lim fraudulently transferred all her real

property to her children when she executed the Deed of Donation
She alleges that Lim conspired with her children in antedating the Deed
of Donation

Lim maintains that the Deed of Donation was made in good faith and
was not antedated
The reason why the Deed of Donation was only registered on Jul. 2,
1991; was because she was seriously ill

Regional Trial Court ordered for the rescission and declared the TCTs
as void, and ordered Lim to pay Siguan moral damages, attorneys fees,
and litigation expenses (Php 25,000)

Court of Appeals reversed the decision and dismissed Siguans accion

pauliana
They held that the two requisites for filing an accion pauliana were
absent
(1) Credit existing prior to celebration of contract
(2) Fraud, intention to commit fraud, to the prejudice of the creditor
seeking rescission

Issue:
Whether the Deed of
Donation was made in
fraud of Siguan and is
therefore rescissible

CA erred in finding that

Deed of Donation was not
made in fraud of creditors
CA ignored the existence
of a prior final judgment
against Lim (Suarez case)
before the execution of the
Deed of Donation
CA overlooked NCC 759
always presumed to be in
fraud of creditors.. at time
of execution, donor did
not reserve sufficient
propery to pay debts prior
to donation

Having agreed on the law

and requisites of accion
pauliana, Siguan cant take
shelter under a different
law
Siguan cant invoke
Suarezs credit not a
party to the case
Siguan failed to present
convincing evidence that
Deed of Donation was
antedated

RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT

PETITIONER
PETITIONER

Arguments:

Doctrine:

Accion Pauliana the action to rescind contracts in fraud

of creditors
Requisites:

Plaintiff asking for rescission has a credit prior to alienation

Debtor made a subsequent contract conveying a patrimonial
benefit to a third person
Creditor has no other legal remedy to satisfy his claim
Act being impugned is fraudulent
Third person who received the property conveyed has been an
accomplice to the fraud

Credit of plaintiff in the accion pauliana must exist prior to

the fraudulent alienation, without prior existing debt
there can neither be injury nor fraud
While this is necessary, the judgment enforcing it is
immaterial
Even if the judgment be subsequent to the alienation
merely declaratory, with retroactive effect to the date when
the credit was constituted
Aug. 1990 Debt was incurred, Aug. 1989 Deed of
Donation was executed

Decision:
Court finds that no fraud was made in the execution of
the Deed of Donation
First two requisites of accion pauliana were absent
Siguans claim comes a year
after Deed of Donation was
executed
Fourth requisite
Petitionnot present
dismisse
d
CA
decision
affirmed

What are the requisites of

Accion Pauliana?

Plaintiff asking for rescission has a credit prior to alienation

Debtor made a subsequent contract conveying a patrimonial
benefit to a third person
Creditor has no other legal remedy to satisfy his claim
Act being impugned is fraudulent
Third person who received the property conveyed has been an
accomplice to the fraud