♥ ILOVEYOU ♥
Oria Vs McMicking
Art. 1387. All contracts by virtue of which the debtor alienates property by gratuitous title are presumed to have been entered into in fraud of creditors, when the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay all debts contracted before the donation.
Gutierrez Hermanos filed an action for recovery of a sum of money against Oria Hermanos & Co. and herein plaintiff filed an action for recovery also for the same defendant. Before the institution of the suits, members of the Company dissolved their relations and entered into liquidation. Tomas Oria y Balbas acting in behalf of his co-owners entered into a contract with the herein plaintiff for the purpose of transferring and selling all the property which the Oria Hermanos & Co. owned and among the goods stated on that instrument was the steamship Serpantes and which the subject of this litigation. When the Trail Court resolved the action for recovery filed by Gutierrez Hermanos and jugdment was in his favor, The sheriff demanded to Tomas Oria y Balbas to make payment but the latter said there were no funds to pay the same. The sheriff then levied on the steamer, took possession of the same and announced it for public auction. Herein plaintiff claimed that he is the owner of the steamer by virtue of the selling of all the properties of the said Company.
is the sale from Oria Hermanos to Manuel Oria y Gonzalez fraudulent against the creditors of Oria Hermanos, making the transfer of the steamship void as to the creditors, and as to Gutierrez Hermanos in particular
At the time of said sale the value of the assets of Oria Hermanos & Co., as stated by the partners themselves, was P274,000. The vendee of said sale was a son of Tomas Oria y Balbas and a nephew of the other two persons heretofore mentioned which said three brothers together constituted all of the members of said company.The plaintiff is a young man of 25 years old and has no property before the said selling. The court had laid down the rules in determining whether a there has been fraud prejudicing creditors: 1) consideration of conveyance is fictitious; 2) transfer was made while the suit against him (Tomas Oria y Balbas) was pending; 3) sale by insolvent debtor; 4) evidence of insolvency; 5) transfer of all properties; 6) the sale was made between father and son; 7) and the failure of the vendee to take exclusive possession of the property. The case at bar shows every one of the badges of fraud.
Aquino vs Tañedo
Art. 1380. Contracts validly agreed upon may be rescinded in the cases established by law. (1290)
Art. 1381. The following contracts are rescissible:
(1) Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things which are the object thereof;
(2) Those agreed upon in representation of absentees, if the latter suffer the lesion stated in the preceding number;
(3) Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them;
(4) Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority;
(5) All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission. (1291a)
On May 5, 1913, the plaintiff purchased from the defendant several parcels of land for the price of P45,000 (Exhibit X). In the contract the defendant acknowledged receipt of the sum of P10,000, as a part of this price, the contracting parties stipulating that the rest should be paid as follows: P7,000 in September of the same year, P10,000 in May, 1914, and P18,000 in 1915. By virtue of this contract the plaintiff took possession of the lands purchased. On March 28, 1914, the plaintiff and the defendant, by...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document