SIGUAN v.
LIM 318 SCRA 725
Facts:
On 25 and 26 August 1990, Rosa Lim (Lim) issued two Metrobank checks to satisfy her debts to Maria
Antonia Siguan (Siguan). Upon presentment by Siguan with the drawee bank, the checks were dishonoured
for the reason account closed. Criminal case for violation of BP 22 was filed by Siguan against Lim. On
December 29 1992, RTC convicted Lim as charged. The case is pending before this Court for review.
On August 10 1898, Lim executed a Deed of Donation in favour of her children, and the same was
registered with the Office of the Register of Deeds on July 2, 1991 June 23, 193, Siguan filed an accion
pauliana against Lim and her children, to rescind the questioned Deed of Donation and to declare as null
and void the new transfer certificates of title.
Issue
Whether or not the questioned Deed of Donation was made in fraud of petitioner and, therefore, rescissible.
Ruling:
No. The rescission required the existence of creditors at the time of alleged fraudulent alienation, and this
must be proved as one of the bases of the judicial pronouncement setting aside the contract. Without prior
existing debt, there can neither be injury nor fraud. While it is necessary that the credit of the plaintiff in the
accion pauliana must exist prior to the fraudulent alienation, the date of the judgment enforcing it is
immaterial.
Since Lim’s indebtedness to Siguan was incurred in August 1990, or a year after the execution of the Deed
of Donation, the first requirement of accion pauliana was not met.
Even assuming arguendo that petitioner became a creditor of Lim prior to the celebration of the contract of
donation, still her action for rescission would not fare well because the third requisite was not met. It is
essential that the party asking for rescission prove that he has exhausted all other legal means to obtain
satisfaction of his claim. Siguan neither alleged nor proved that she did so. On his score, her action for
rescission of the questioned deed is not maintainable even if the fraud charged actually did exist.
The fourth requisite for an accion pauliana to prosper is not present either. The act being impugned is
fraudulent. It was not sufficiently established that the properties left behind by Lim were not sufficient to
cover her debts existing before the donation was made.