Article 1350

In onerous contracts the cause is understood to be, for each contracting party, the prestation or promise of a thing or service by the other; in remuneratory ones, the service or benefit which is remunerated; and in contracts of pure beneficence, the mere liberality of the benefactor. (1274)


Ang pagkakalautang na kailangang bigyan ng pangunahing pansin ay dapat nauunawaan ng bawat partido, kagaya ng mga bagay ng mga pangako ng bawat isa; mga bagay na bayaran at serbisyo at benepisyong gagawin, at ang mga kagalingan at kabutihan na magagawa nito.

Article 1351

The particular motives of the parties in entering into a contract are different from the cause thereof. (n)

Ang partikular na motibo ng mga partidong pumasok sa kontrata ay magkaiba sa dahilan nito.

Discussion:

Motive and Causes, Difference

The cause of a contract is the objective and juridical reason for the establishment of a contract and is always the same. while motive is the psychological or personal purpose of a party in getting the object and differs with each person.  Each party may have his own personal reasons or motives in entering into a contract.  Motive or even with illegal motives does not affect the validity of the contract.

Exception:  If the motive predetermines  the purpose of the contract, motive may be regarded as cause.

Case Illustration: Amparo Gonzalez and Alfredo Trinidad vs. Primitivo Trinidad and Maria Ynares

 

Article 1352

Contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no effect whatever. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.

Kontrata ng walang kadahilan, o hindi naayon sa batas na dahilan, maaaring magbigay ng walang epekto  na kahit ano pa. Ang sanhi ay maaaring hindi naaayos sa batas kung ito sa sumasalungat sa batas, moral, kaugalian, sa ayos ng publiko o sa polisiya ng publiko.

 

Carantes v. Court of Appeals

Facts: The heirs of a deceased person assigned in 1939 their “Right to Inheritance” in favor of a co-heir in consideration of the sum of P1.00 and in further consideration of the fact that while the deceased was still alive, he had orally expressed that the assignee co heir was actually the rightful owner of the property being assigned to him. It was alleged later, in an action to nullify the assignment, that the deed of assignment was void, there being no consideration therefor, and that the action to have the deed declared void does not prescribe because the deed itself was void.

Issues: Was the contract of assignment valid? Does this kind of action prescribe?

Held:

1. The contract of assignment is VALID, there being sufficient consideration therefor-the P1.00 consideration and the fact that the deceased had previously recognized the assignee to be the rightful owner of the property.
2. Since the contract is not valid, an action to declare its nullity may prescribe.
3. Since the contract is not void, an action to declare its nullity may prescribe.