ART. 1352. Contracts without cause, or with unlawful cause, produce no effect whatever. The cause is unlawful if it is con- trary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public poll- cy. (1275a) Requisites of cause. The following are the requisites of cause: (1) It must exist at the time the contract is entered into (Arts. 1352, 1409[3].); (2) It must be lawful (Ibid.); and (3) It must be true or real. (Art. 1353.) Effect of absence of cause. Absence or want of cause means that there is a total lack of any valid consideration for the contract. (see Garanciang vs. Garanciang, 28 SCRA 229 [ 1969].) (1) Statement in contract of a non-existent cause. - Contracts without cause confer no right and produce no legal effect whatever. Thus, a contract which is absolutely simulated or fictitious is inexistent and void. (Arts. 1346, 1409[3].) Where there is, in fact, no consideration, the statement of one in the contract will not suffice to bring it under the rule of Article 1353 as stating a false consideration. (Mapalo vs. Mapalo, 17 SCRA 114 [1966].) A contract of sale, for example, is void if the price is simulated, but the act may be shown to have been in reality a donation or some other act or contract. (Art. 1471.) (2) Grant of right of first refusal. - It is not correct to say that there is no consideration for the grant of the right of first refusal if such grant is embodied in the same contract of lease. Since the stipulation formsEffect of failure of cause. Absence of cause should be distinguished from inadequacy of cause which, as a general rule, is not a ground for relief (see Art. 1355.), and from failure of cause which does not render a contract void. (see Arts. 1169, par. 3; 1170, 1191.) (1) The failure to pay the stipulated price after the execution of a contract of sale does not convert the contract into one without cause or consideration, it not being essential to the existence of cause that payment or full payment be made at the time of the contract. (Puato vs. Mendoza, 64 Phil. 417 [1937]; Catangcatang vs. Legayada, 84 SCRA 51 [1978].) Neither is a deed of sale with a right of repurchase rendered void by the dishonor of the checks that were issued for the redemption of the properties involved by the drawee bank for having been drawn against a closed account. (Mate vs. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 463 [1998].) But a contract of sale is null and void for being without cause (Art. 1409[3].) where the purchase price, which appears thereon as paid (e.g., where the deed of sale states: that I [seller] for and in considerationEffect of illegality of cause. Illegality of cause implies that there is a cause but the same is unlaw- ful or illegal. The cause is unlawful if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs public order, or public policy. (see Art. 1306.) Contracts with unlawful cause are also null and void. (Arts. 1353, 1409[1]; see Arts. 1411, 1412, 1414, 1416-1422.) (1) A promise of marriage based upon carnal connection is founded on an unlawful cause and, therefore, void and no action can be maintained by the woman against the man therefor. (Batarra vs. Marcos, 7 Phil. 156 [1906].) (2) A proscription against sale of property between spouses applies even to common law relationships (Calimlim-Canullas vs. Fortun, 129 SCRA 675 [1984].) The sale made by a husband in favor of concubine after he had abandoned his family and left the conjugal home is null and void, being subversive of the stability of the family which public policy cherishes and protects. (Ching vs. Goyanko, Jr., 506 SCRA 735 [2006].) (3) A contract whereby a person accused of a crime obliges himself to give a sum of money in consideration of the promise on the part of the obligee to refrain from testifying against him is void because the purpose is to stifle criminal prosecution and this is against public policy. (Velez vs. Ramas, 40 Phil. 787 [1920]; Arroyo vs. Bernin, 36 Phil. 386 [1917].) (4) A promissory note is void ab initio and no cause of action for collection can arise from it where the consideration for it is to influence public officers in the performance of their duties which is contrary to law and public policy. (Pineda vs. De la Rama, 121 SCRA 671 [1983]; see Arts. 1306, 1412[1].)