90

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Guzman
*

G.R.No.132964.February18,2000.

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs.DAVID
REY GUZMAN, represented by his AttorneyinFact,
LOLITA G. ABELA, and the REGISTER OF DEEDS OF
BULACAN,MEYCAUAYANBRANCH,respondents.
Civil Law; Property; Donations; Three Essential Elements of a
Donation.There are three (3) essential elements of a donation:
(a)thereductionofthepatrimonyofthedonor;(b)theincreasein
the patrimony of the donee; and, (c) the intent to do an act of
liberality or animus donandi. When applied to a donation of an
immovable property, the law further requires that the donation be
madeinapublicdocumentandthatthereshouldbeanacceptance
thereof made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document. In cases where the acceptance is made in a separate
instrument,itismandatedthatthedonorshouldbenotifiedthereof
inanauthenticform,tobenotedinbothinstruments.
91

VOL.326,FEBRUARY18,2000

91

Republic vs. Guzman

Same; Same; Same; When the deed of donation is recorded in
the registry of property the document that evidences the acceptance
should also be recorded.In Santos v. Robledo we emphasized
that when the deed of donation is recorded in the registry of
property the document that evidences the acceptanceif this has
notbeenmadeinthedeedofgiftshouldalsoberecorded.Andin
one or both documents, as the case may be, the notification of the
acceptanceasformallymadetothedonorordonorsshouldbeduly
setforth.Wherethedeedofdonationfailstoshowtheacceptance,
or where the formal notice of the acceptance made in a separate
instrumentiseithernotgiventothedonororelsenotedinthedeed
of donation, and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null
andvoid.
Same; Same; Same; It is wellsettled that if the notification and
notation are not complied with, the donation is void.These
requisites, definitely prescribed by law, have not been complied
with,andnoproofofcomplianceappearsintherecord.Thetwo(2)
quitclaim deeds set out the conveyance of the parcels of land by
HeleninfavorofDavidbutitsacceptancebyDaviddoesnotappear
in the deeds, nor in the Special Power of Attorney. Further, the
records reveal no other instrument that evidences such acceptance
and notice thereof to the donor in an authentic manner. It is well

settled that if the notification and notation are not complied with,
thedonationisvoid.Therefore,theprovisionsofthelawnothaving
beencompliedwith,therewasnoeffectiveconveyanceoftheparcels
oflandbywayofdonationinter vivos.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
The Solicitor Generalforpetitioner.
Bocobo, Rondain, Mendiola, Cruz & Formosoforprivate
respondent.
92

92

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Guzman

BELLOSILLO,J.:
The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES seeks the
nullification
of the 5 March 1998 Decision of the Court of
1
Appeals whichaffirmedthedismissalbytheRegionalTrial
Court,Br.77,Malolos,Bulacan,ofthepetitionforescheat
2
filedbytheGovernment.
DavidReyGuzman,anaturalbornAmericancitizen,is
3
the son of the spouses Simeon Guzman, a naturalized
Americancitizen,andHelenMeyersGuzman,anAmerican
citizen.In1968SimeondiedleavingtohissoleheirsHelen
and David an estate consisting of several parcels of land
locatedinBagbaguin,Sta.Maria,Bulacan,coveredbyTCT
Nos. T146837 (M), T146839 (M), T146840 (M), T146841
(M),T146842(M),T120254(M)andT120257(M).
On29December1970HelenandDavidexecutedaDeed
of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Simeon Guzman
dividing and adjudicating to themselves all the property
belonging to the estate of Simeon. The document of
extrajudicial settlement was registered in the Office of the
Register of Deeds on 8 December 1971. The taxes due
thereon were paid through their attorneysinfact, Attys.
JuanL.AustriaandLolitaG.Abela,andtheparcelsofland
were accordingly registered in the name of Helen Meyers
GuzmanandDavidReyGuzmaninundividedequalshares.
On10December1981HelenexecutedaQuitclaim Deed
assigning,transferringandconveyingtohersonDavidher
undivided onehalf (1/2) interest on all the parcels of land
subjectmatteroftheDeed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the
Estate of Simeon Guzman.Sincethedocumentappearednot
to have been registered, upon advice of Atty. Lolita G.
Abela, Helen executed another document, a Deed of
Quitclaim,on9
_________________
1

Decision penned by Justice Emeterio C. Cui, concurred in by

JusticeRamonU.Mabutas,Jr.andJusticeHilarionL.Aquino.
2DecisionpennedbyJudgeAuroraSantiagoLagman.
3ReferredtoalternativelyasSimeondeGuzmaninthepleadings.

93

VOL.326,FEBRUARY18,2000

93

Republic vs. Guzman

August1989confirmingtheearlierdeedofquitclaimaswell
as modifying the document
to encompass all her other
4
propertyinthePhilippines.
On 18 October 1989 David executed a Special Power of
Attorneywhereheacknowledgedthathebecametheowner
of the parcels of land subject of the Deed of Quitclaim
executedbyHelenon9August1989andempoweringAtty.
LolitaG.Abelatosellorotherwisedisposeofthelots.On1
February 1990 Atty. Lolita G. Abela, upon instruction of
Helen, paid donors taxes to facilitate the registry of the
parcelsoflandinthenameofDavid.
On16March1994acertainAtty.MarioA.Batongbacal
wrote the Office of the Solicitor General and furnished it
withdocumentsshowingthatDavidsownershipoftheone
half(1/2)oftheestateofSimeonGuzmanwasdefective.On
thebasisthereof,theGovernmentfiledbeforetheRegional
Trial Court of Malolos Bulacan a Petition for Escheat
prayingthatonehalf(1/2)ofDavidsinterestineachofthe
subjectparcelsoflandbeforfeitedinitsfavor.On9August
1994DavidReyGuzmanrespondedwithaprayerthatthe
petitionbedismissed.
On 11 July 1995 the trial court dismissed the petition
holding that the two (2) deeds of quitclaim executed by
HelenMeyersGuzmanhadnolegalforceandeffectsothat
theownershipofthepropertysubjectthereofremainedwith
5
her.
6
TheGovernmentappealed the dismissal of the petition
buttheappellatecourtaffirmedthecourta quo.
Petitioner anchors its argument on Art. XII of the
Constitutionwhichprovides
Sec.7.Saveincasesofhereditarysuccession,noprivatelandsshall
betransferredorconveyedexcepttoindividuals,corpo
_________________
4 This deed was denominated as Deed

of Quitclaim to be differentiated

fromthefirstonecaptionedasQuitclaim Deed
5RTCDecision,p.5.
6Appealinstitutedon31May1996.

94

94

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Guzman

rations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the

publicdomain.
Sec.8.NotwithstandingtheprovisionsofSection7ofthisArticle,
anaturalborncitizenofthePhilippineswhohaslosthisPhilippine
citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to
limitationsprovidedbylaw.

Thus as a rule, only a Filipino citizen can acquire private

lands in the Philippines. The only instances when a
foreignercanacquireprivatelandsinthePhilippinesareby
hereditarysuccessionandifhewasformerlyanaturalborn
Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship.
Petitioner therefore contends that the acquisition of the
parcels of land by David does not fall under any of these
exceptions.ItassertsthatDavidbeinganAmericancitizen
could not validly acquire onehalf (1/2) interest in each of
the subject parcels of land by way of the two (2) deeds of
quitclaimastheyareinrealitydonationsinter vivos.Italso
reasonsoutthattheelementsofdonationarepresentinthe
conveyance made by Helen in favor of David: first, Helen
consented to the execution of the documents; second, the
dispositions were made in public documents; third, David
manifested his acceptance of the donation in the Special
Power of Attorney he executed in favor of Atty. Lolita G.
Abela;fourth,thedeedswereexecutedwiththeintentionof
benefitingDavid;andlastly,therewasaresultantdecrease
in the assets or patrimony of Helen, being the donor.
Petitionerfurtherarguesthatthepaymentofdonorstaxes
onthepropertyprovedthatHelenintendedthetransferto
beagiftordonationinter vivos.
Davidmaintains,ontheotherhand,thatheacquiredthe
property by right of accretion and not by way of donation,
with the deeds of quitclaim merely declaring Helens
intentiontorenouncehershareinthepropertyandnotan
intentiontodonate.Hefurtherarguesthat,assumingthere
wasindeedadonation,itnevertookeffectsincetheSpecial
Power of Attorneyheexecuteddoesnotindicateacceptance
oftheallegeddonation.
95

VOL.326,FEBRUARY18,2000

95

Republic vs. Guzman

Therearethree(3)essentialelementsofadonation:(a)the
reductionofthepatrimonyofthedonor;(b)theincreasein
thepatrimonyofthedonee;and,(c)theintenttodoanactof
liberalityoranimus donandi.Whenappliedtoadonationof
an immovable property, the law further requires that the
donation be made in a public document and that there
should be an acceptance thereof made in the
same deed of
7
donationorinaseparatepublicdocument. Incaseswhere
the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, it is
mandated that the donor should be notified thereof
in an
8
authenticform,tobenotedinbothinstruments.
Not all the elements of a donation of an immovable
propertyarepresentintheinstantcase.Thetransferofthe
property by virtue of the Deed of Quitclaim executed by
Helen resulted in the reduction of her patrimony as donor
and the consequent increase in the patrimony of David as
donee. However, Helens intention to perform an act of
liberalityinfavorofDavidwasnotsufficientlyestablished.
A perusal of the two (2) deeds of quitclaim reveals that
HelenintendedtoconveytohersonDavidcertainparcelsof
land located in the Philippines, and to reaffirm the

quitclaim she executed in 1981 which likewise declared a

waiver and renunciation of her rights over the parcels of
land. The language of the deed of quitclaim is clear that
Helenmerelycontemplatedawaiverofherrights,titleand
interestoverthelandsinfavorofDavid,andnotadonation.
That a donation was far from Helens mind is further
supported by her deposition which indicated that she was
awarethatadonationoftheparcelsoflandwasnotpossible9
sincePhilippinelawdoesnotallowsuchanarrangement.
Shereasonedthatifshereallyintendedto
___________________
7Art.749,NewCivilCode.
8Ibid.
9

Q: Ms. Guzman, did you intend to donate your share of the

propertiestoyourson,David?
A:

No,sir.Thatwouldhavebeenfoolish.

Q:

Foolish?
96

96

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Guzman

donate something to David it would have been more

convenient if she sold
the property and gave him the
10
proceeds therefrom. It appears that foremost in Helens
mindwasthepreservationoftheBulacanrealtywithinthe
bloodline of Simeon from where they originated, over and
above the benefit that
would accrue to David by reason of
11
her renunciation. The element of animus donandi
thereforewasmissing.
Likewise, the two (2) deeds of quitclaim executed by
Helen may have been in the nature of a public document
but they lack the essential element of acceptance in the
properformrequiredbylawtomakethedonationvalid.We
find no merit in petitioners argument that the Special
Power of AttorneyexecutedbyDavidinfavorofAtty.Lolita
G.Abelamanifests
__________________
A: Yes.LitaexplainedtomethatwhileIcouldholdthepropertiesin
myownname,sellthemandevenrenouncemyrightsoverthem,
PhilippinelawdidnotallowmetodonatethemtoDavid.Ithought
thatwasalittlestrangebut,ifthatsyourlaw,whatcanIdo?

Anyway,shesaidIcouldonlytakethepropertiesorrenouncethem
inDavidsfavor.SoIrenounced.Besides,ifIreallywantedto
donateanythingtoDavid,Icouldhaveaseasilysoldtheproperties
andgivenhimthemoneyIwouldhavemade.Therewouldnthave
beenanypointinrenouncingandallthat,xxx(Depositionof
HelenMeyers,12October1994,Chicago,Illinois).
10Ibid.
11Q:Whatdidyoutellher?

A: ItoldhermysentimentsaboutSimeonsproperties.
Q: Whichwere?
A: IfeltthatthepropertiescamefromthelaborofSimeonsforebears.

Whilehewasalivehedidtellmethatheinheritedsomelandin
thePhilippinessomefamily,Ithoughtitwasonlyfairthatthey
shouldretimeinthe1920s.Sincethepropertiescamefromhis
mainwiththem.
Q: Whoisthem?
A: Simeonsbloodfamily;David,thatis.xxx(DepositionofHelen
MeyersGuzman,12October1994,Chicago,Illinois,U.S.A).
97

VOL.326,FEBRUARY18,2000

97

Republic vs. Guzman

hisimpliedacceptanceofhismothersallegeddonationasa
scrutiny of the document clearly evinces the absence
thereof.TheSpecial Power of Attorneymerelyacknowledges
that David owns the property referred to and that he
authorizesAtty.Abelatosellthesameinhisname.Thereis
no intimation, expressly or impliedly, that Davids
acquisition of the parcels of land is by virtue of Helens
possible donation to him and we cannot look beyond the
languageofthedocumenttomakeacontraryconstruction
12
asthiswouldbeinconsistentwiththeparolevidencerule.
Moreover,itismandatedthatifanacceptanceismadein
aseparatepublicwritingthenoticeoftheacceptancemust
be noted not only in the document containing the
acceptancebutalsointhedeedofdonation.Commentingon
13
Art. 633 of the Civil Code from whence Art. 749 came
Manresa said: If the acceptance does not appear in the
samedocument,itmustbemadeinanother.Solemnwords
arenotnecessary;itissufficientifitshowstheintentionto
accept x x x x it is necessary that formal notice thereof be
given to the donor, and the fact that due notice has been
given must be noted in both instruments.
Then and only
14
thenisthedonationperfected.
__________________
12

Rule 130, Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements.When the

termsofanagreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,itisconsideredas
containing all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the
partiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofsuchtermsother
thanthecontentsofthewrittenagreementxxxx.
13Art.749.Inorderthatthedonationofanimmovablemaybevalid,

it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property

donatedandthevalueofthechargeswhichthedoneemustsatisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a
separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done
duringthelifetimeofthedonor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall
benotifiedthereofinanauthenticform,andthisstepshallbenotedin
bothinstruments(CivilCode).
14Di

Siock Jian vs. Sy Lioc Suy,43Phil.562(1922),citing5Manresa

115.
98

98

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guzman

Thus, in Santos v. Robledo we emphasized that when the
deedofdonationisrecordedintheregistryofpropertythe
document that evidences the acceptanceif this has not
been made in the deed of giftshould also be recorded.
And in one or both documents, as the case may be, the
notificationoftheacceptanceasformallymadetothedonor
15
or donors should be duly set forth. Where the deed of
donation fails to show the acceptance, or where the formal
notice of the acceptance made in a separate instrument is
either not given to the donor or else noted in the deed of
donation, and16 in the separate acceptance, the donation is
nullandvoid.
These requisites, definitely prescribed by law, have not
beencompliedwith,andnoproofofcomplianceappearsin
the record. The two (2) quitclaim deeds set out the
conveyanceoftheparcelsoflandbyHeleninfavorofDavid
but its acceptance by David does not appear in the deeds,
nor in the Special Power of Attorney. Further, the records
revealnootherinstrumentthatevidencessuchacceptance
andnoticethereoftothedonorinanauthenticmanner.Itis
wellsettled that if the notification and notation are not
complied with, the donation is void. Therefore, the
provisionsofthelawnothavingbeencompliedwith,there
wasnoeffectiveconveyanceoftheparcelsoflandbywayof
17
donationinter vivos.
However, the inexistence of a donation does not render
the repudiation made by Helen in favor of David valid.
There is no valid repudiation of inheritance as Helen had
already accepted her share of the inheritance when she,
together with David, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of the Estate of Simeon Guzmanon29December
1970dividingandadjudicatingbetweenthetwo(2)ofthem
all the property in Simeons estate. By virtue of such
extrajudicialsettlementtheparcelsoflandwereregistered
inherandhersonsnameinundividedequalshareandfor
eleven(11)yearstheypos
_________________
15Santos

vs. Robledo,28Phil.245(1914).

16SeeNote14.
17Legasto

v. Verzosa,54Phil.766(1930);seeNote14.
99

VOL.326,FEBRUARY18,2000

99

Republic vs. Guzman

sessedthelandsintheconceptofowner.Article1056ofthe
CivilCodeprovides
The acceptance or repudiation of an inheritance, once made is
irrevocable and cannot be impugned, except when it was made
throughanyofthecausesthatvitiateconsentorwhenanunknown
willappears.

Nothing on record shows that Helens acceptance of her

inheritance from Simeon was made through any of the
causeswhichvitiatedherconsentnoristhereanyproofof
theexistenceofanunknownwillexecutedbySimeon.Thus,
pursuant to Art. 1056, Helen cannot belatedly execute an
instrument which has the effect of revoking or impugning
her previous acceptance of her onehalf (1/2) share of the
subject property from Simeons estate. Hence, the two (2)
quitclaimdeedswhichsheexecutedeleven(11)yearsafter
she had accepted the inheritance have no legal force and
effect.
Nevertheless,thenullityoftherepudiationdoesnotipso
18
factooperatetoconverttheparcelsoflandintores nullius
tobeescheatedinfavoroftheGovernment.Therepudiation
being of no effect whatsoever the parcels of land should
reverttotheirprivateowner,Helen,who,althoughbeingan
American citizen, is qualified by hereditary succession to
ownthepropertysubjectofthelitigation.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of
AppealswhichsustainedtheDecisionoftheRegionalTrial
Court of Malolos, Bulacan, dismissing the petition for
escheatisAFFIRMED.Nocosts.
_________________
18

The property of nobody. A thing which has no owner, either

because a former owner has finally abandoned it, or because it has

neverbeenappropriatedbyanyperson,orbecause(intheRomanLaw)
itisnotsusceptibleofprivateownership;BlacksDictionaryofLaw,4th
Ed.,p.1470.
100

100

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Beso vs. Aballe

SOORDERED.
Mendoza, QuisumbingandDe Leon, Jr., JJ.,concur.
Buena, J.,Onleave.
Judgment affirmed.
Note.The prohibition against donations between
spouses applies to donations between persons living
together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
(Agapay vs. Palang,276SCRA340[1997])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.