Scribd
Upload
279 views1 page

Real Action for Fishpond Recovery

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.

Uploaded by

Alyanna Barre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
279 views1 page

Real Action for Fishpond Recovery

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.

Uploaded by

Alyanna Barre
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

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