Synopsis/Syllabi

THIRDDIVISION

[G.R.No.119730.September2,1999]

RODOLFO NOCEDA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AURORAARBIZO DIRECTO,

respondents.
DECISION
GONZAGAREYES,J.:

ThispetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtseekstoreversethedecisiondatedMarch31,
1995 of the respondent Court of Appeals[1] in CA GR CV No. 38126, affirming with modification the decision of the
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch71,ofIba,Zambales,[2]inanactionbyprivaterespondentagainstpetitionerforrecoveryof
possessionandownershipandrescission/annulmentofdonation.
ThefactsofthecaseassummarizedbytherespondentCourtareasfollows:[3]

OnJune1,1981,plaintiffAuroraDirecto,defendantRodolfoNoceda,andMariaArbizo,thedaughter,grandson,
andwidow,respectively,ofthelateCelestinoArbizo,whodiedin1956,extrajudiciallysettledaparcelofland,Lot
1121,locatedatBitaog,SanIsidro,Cabangan,Zambales,whichwassaidtohaveanareaof66,530squaremeters.
PlaintiffDirectossharewas11,426squaremeters,defendantNocedagot13,294squaremeters,andtheremaining
41,810squaremeterswenttoMariaArbizo(ExhibitG).Onthesamedate,plaintiffDirectodonated625square
metersofhersharetodefendantNoceda,whoishernephewbeingthesonofherdeceasedsister,Carolina(Exhibit
D).However,onAugust17,1981,anotherextrajudicialsettlementpartitionofLot1121wasexecutedbyplaintiff
Directo,defendantNoceda,andMariaArbizo.ThreefifthsofthesaidlandwenttoMariaArbizowhileplaintiff
DirectoanddefendantNocedagotonlyonefiftheach.InsaidextrajudicialsettlementpartitionaswellasintheTax
Declaration160032overLot1121inthenameofthelateCelestinoArbizo,thesaidparceloflandwassaidtohave
anareaofonly29,845squaremeters(ExhibitC).Sometimein1981,defendantNocedaconstructedhishouseonthe
landdonatedtohimbyplaintiffDirecto.PlaintiffDirectofencedtheportionallottedtoherintheextrajudicial
settlement,excludingthedonatedportion,andconstructedthereonthreehuts.Butin1985,defendantNoceda
removedthefenceearlierconstructedbyplaintiffDirecto,occupiedthethreehuts(3)andfencedtheentirelandof
plaintiffDirectowithoutherconsent.PlaintiffDirectodemandedfromdefendantNocedatovacateherland,butthe
latterrefused.Hence,plaintiffDirectofiledthepresentsuit,acomplaintfortherecoveryofpossessionand
ownershipandrescission/annulmentofdonation,againstdefendantNocedabeforethelowercourt.Duringthetrial,
thelowercourtorderedthatarelocationsurveyofLot1121beconductedbyEngr.EdilbertoQuejadaoftheBureau
ofLands.AfterthesurveyofLot1121inthepresenceofbothparties,Engr.EdilbertoQuejadareportedthatthearea
ofLot1121statedintheextrajudicialsettlementpartitionofAugust17,1981wassmallerthantheactualareaofLot
1121whichis127,298squaremeters.Engr.QuejadasubdividedLot1121,excludingtheportionsoccupiedbythird
persons,knownasLot8,thesalvagezoneandtheroadlot,onthebasisoftheactualoccupancyofLot1121bythe
heirsofthelateCelestinoArbizoandtheextrajudicialsettlementpartitionofAugust17,1981.Theportion
denominatedasLotA,withanareaof12,957squaremeterswastheshareofdefendantNocedaLotC,withthe
sameareaasthatofLotA,wastheshareofplaintiffDirecto,aportionofwhichwasdonatedtodefendantNoceda
andLotB,withanareaof38,872squaremeters,wenttoMariaArbizo(ExhibitE).
On November 6, 1991, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, of Iba, Zambales rendered a decision, the dispositive
portionofwhichreadsasfollows:[4]

WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingconsiderations,theCourtherebyrendersjudgment:

(a)DeclaringtheExtraJudicialSettlementPartitiondatedAugust19,1981,valid
(b)DeclaringtheDeedofDonationdatedJune1,1981,revoked
(c)OrderingthedefendanttovacateandreconveythatdonatedportionofLot2,Lot1121subjectoftheDeedof
DonationdatedJune1,1981totheplaintifforherheirsorassigns
(d)Orderingthedefendanttoremovethehousebuiltinsidethedonatedportionatthedefendantsexpenseorpaya
monthlyrentalofP300.00PhilippineCurrency
(e)OrderingthedefendanttopayattorneysfeesintheamountofP5,000.00and
(f)Topaythecost.
RodolfoNocedoappealedtotherespondentCourtwhichaffirmedthetrialcourtasfollows:[5]

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered,ORDERINGdefendantRodolfoNocedatoVACATEtheportion
knownasLotCofLot1121perExhibitE,whichwasallottedtoplaintiffAuroraArbizoDirecto.Exceptforthis
modification,theDecision,datedNovember6,1991,oftheRTCIba,Zambales,Branch71,inCivilCaseNo.RTC
354I,isherebyAFFIRMEDinallotherrespects.CostsagainstdefendantRodolfoNoceda.
Dissatisfied,petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewwiththefollowingassignmentoferrors:[6]

THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATTHESUBJECTPROPERTYIDENTIFIEDASLOT
1121CONTAINSANAREAINEXCESSOFTHATSTATEDINITSTAXDECLARATION.
THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATLOT1121SHOULDBEPARTITIONEDIN
ACCORDANCEWITHTHEEXTRAJUDICIALSETTLEMENTDATED17AUGUST1981.
THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINADJUDICATINGANDALLOTINGLOTCASAPPEARINGINTHE
SURVEYPLANPREPAREDBYGEODETICENGINEEREDILBERTOQUEJADATOTHERESPONDENT.
THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINFINDINGTHATTHEPETITIONERUSURPEDANAREA
ADJUDICATEDTOTHERESPONDENT.
THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINREVOKINGTHEDEEDOFDONATIONDATED1JUNE1981.
The first issue raised refers to the actual area of the subject lot known as Lot 1121, which was registered under Tax
DeclarationNo.160032underthenameofthelateCelestinoArbizo.PetitionerclaimsthatTaxDeclarationNo.160032
containsonlyanareaof29,845sq.meterthustherespondentCourtexceededitsjudicialauthoritywhenitsustainedthe
lowercourtsfindingsthatthesubjectpropertyactuallycontainsanareaof127,289squaremeters.
Wefindtheargumentunmeritorious.TherecordsdisclosethatthetrialcourtinanOrderdatedJune8,1987gaveboth
partiestothiscasethechancetohavethesubjectpropertyresurveyedbyalicensedsurveyortodeterminetheactualareaof
Lot1121.[7] Plaintiff Aurora Directo filed a motion/compliance where she suggested that Geodetic Engineer Edilberto V.
QuejadaoftheBureauofLands,Iba,Zambalesbecommissionedtoundertakethesurvey[8]saidmotionwasalsosentto
defendants counsel,Atty. Eufracio Pagunuran for Comment,[9] but Atty. Pagunuran however failed to file his Comment
withinthegivenperiod.ThusthetrialcourtdesignatedEngineerQuejadatoundertakethesurveyofLot1121.[10]Petitioner
NocedathroughcounselbelatedlyfiledhisCommentwithoutanyoppositiontotheappointmentofEngineerQuejadabut
proposedthatthelatterbetaskedtosolely(a)resurvey,determineandidentifythemetesandboundsofthelotcoveredby
TaxDeclarationNo.160032(b)toidentifytheareasoccupiedbythepartiesthereinand(c)toconducttheresurveywith
noticeandinthepresenceofthepartiesthereinandtheirrespectivecounsels.[11] The Comment was not, however, acted
uponbythetrialcourtinviewofitsearlierOrderdirectingEngineerQuejadatoundertakethesurveyoftheland.[12]Engr.
Quejada conducted the survey with the conformity and in the presence of both parties, taking into consideration the
extrajudicialpartitiondatedAugust17,1981,deedofdonationdatedJune1,1981executedbyplaintiffAuroraDirectoin

favorofdefendantRodolfoNocedaandtheactualareaoccupiedbytheparties,[13]aswellasthesketchplan[14] and the

technicaldescriptionofLot1121takenfromtheRecordsSectionoftheBureauofLands,Manila.[15]Thereportandthe
surveyplansubmittedbyEngr.QuejadawereapprovedbytheTrialCourtinanOrderdatedDecember7,1987.[16]These
circumstancesshowthatthelowercourtorderedtheresurveyofthelottodeterminetheactualareaofLot1121andsuch
survey was done with the conformity and in the presence of both parties.The actual land area based on the survey plan
which was conducted in the presence of both parties, showed a much bigger area than the area declared in the tax
declaration but such differences are not uncommon as early tax declarations are, more often than not, based on
approximationorestimationratherthanoncomputation.[17]Weholdthattherespondentcourtdidnoterrinsustainingthe
trialcourtsfindingsthattheactualareaofLot1121is127,289squaremeters.
Petitioneralsocontendsthatsaidjudicialdeterminationimproperlyencroachesontherightsandclaimsofthirdpersons
whowereneverimpleadedbelowthatthesubjectlotwasalsodeclaredinthenameofoneCeciliaObispoandaFreePatent
overthesaidlotwasalsoissuedinhernameandthatthereareseveralresidentialhousesconstructedandexistingonLot8
oflot1121,thusthesepossessors/occupantsofLot8shouldbejoinedasdefendantsfortheirnoninclusionwouldbefatalto
respondentscauseofaction.
Wefindnomeritinthisargument.TherespondentCourtcorrectlyratiocinatedonthisissueasfollows:[18]

ThefactthatCeciliaObispohastaxdeclarationsinhernameoverLot1121andseveralpersonsoccupiedaportion
thereofdidnotmakethemindispensablepartiesinthepresentcase.DefendantNocedamerelypresentedthetax
declarationsinthenameofCeciliaObispowithouttheallegedfreepatentinhername.Moreover,noevidencewas
presentedshowingthatCeciliaObispopossessedorclaimedpossessionofLot1121.Taxreceiptsanddeclarationsof
ownershipfortaxpurposesarenotconclusiveevidenceofownershipofproperty(Republicvs.Intermediate
AppellateCourt,224SCRA285).
ItwasnotnecessarythattheoccupantsofaportionofLot1121,designatedasLot8,beimpleadedinthepresent
case.Lot8,thoughpartofLot1121,wasexcludedbyEngr.QuejadaindeterminingtherespectiveportionsofLot
1121occupiedbyplaintiffDirecto,defendantNocedaandMariaArbizopursuanttotheextrajudicialsettlement
whichtheyexecutedonAugust17,1981.Theresultofthepresentsuitshallnotinanywayaffecttheoccupantsof
Lot8,sincetheissuesinvolvedinthepresentcasearetheusurpationbydefendantNocedaofthelandadjudicatedto
plaintiffDirectoandtheproprietyofthecancellationofthedeedofdonationinfavorofdefendantNocedaduetohis
ingratitudetoplaintiffDirecto.
Notably,defendantscounselrequestedfortheappearanceofCeciliaObispoanddespitenoticetohertoappearincourt
and bring with her the alleged free patent in her name,[19] she failed to appear and even failed to intervene to protect
whateverinterestandrightshehasoverthesubjectlot.AstotheotherpossessorsofresidentialhousesinLot8ofLot1121,
they are not considered as indispensable parties to this case.A party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in the
controversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other parties and will not necessarily be
prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court.[20] Private respondent is not claiming the
entireareaofLot1121butonlyaportionthereofwhichwasadjudicatedtoherbasedontheAugust17,1981extrajudicial
settlement and which was denominated in the survey plan as Lot C of Lot 1121 thus there was no need to implead the
occupantsofLot8.
Petitionerfurtherclaimsthatthesubjectpropertycouldnotbepartitionedbasedontheextrajudicialsettlementpartition
datedAugust17,1981,sincethedistributiveshareoftheheirsofthelateCelestinoArbizoandtheareaofLot1121stated
thereinweredifferentfromtheextrajudicialsettlementexecutedonJune1,1981thatthediscrepanciesbetweenthetwo
deedsofpartitionwithrespecttotheareaofLot1121andtherespectiveshareofthepartiesthereinindicatedthattheynever
intendedthatanyofthedeedstobethefinaldeterminationoftheportionsofLot1121allottedtothemthattheextrajudicial
settlementpartitionofAugust17,1981couldnoteffectivelysubdivideLot1121becauseitpartitionedonly29,845square
meters,andnotitsactualareaof127,298squaremeters.
WeseenocogentreasontodisturbthefindingsoftherespondentCourtasfollows:[21]

ThediscrepanciesbetweentheextrajudicialsettlementsexecutedbyplaintiffDirecto,defendantNocedaandMaria
ArbizoonJune1,1981andAugust17,1981onlymeantthatthelatterwasintendedtosupersedetheformer.The
signatureofdefendantNocedaintheextrajudicialsettlementofAugust17,1981wouldshowhisconformitytothe
newapportionmentofLot1121amongtheheirsofthelateCelestinoArbizo.ThefactthatdefendantNoceda

occupiedtheportionallottedtohimintheextrajudicialsettlement,aswellasthedonatedportionoftheshareof
plaintiffDirecto,presupposeshisknowledgeoftheextentofboundariesoftheportionofLot1121allottedtohim.
Moreover,thestatementintheextrajudicialsettlementofAugust17,1981withrespecttotheareaofLot1121,
whichwas29,845squaremeters,isnotconclusivebecauseitwasfoundout,aftertherelocationsurveywas
conductedonLot1121,thatthepartiesthereinoccupiedanarealargerthanwhattheyweresupposedtopossessper
theextrajudicialsettlementpartitionofAugust17,1981.
AlthoughintheextrajudicialsettlementdatedAugust17,1981theheirsofCelestinoArbizopartitionedonlya29,845
squaremeterlottoconformwiththeareadeclaredundertaxdeclaration160032yettheheirswereeachactuallyoccupying
abiggerportionthetotalareaofwhichexceeded29,845squaremeters.ThiswasconfirmedbyGeodeticEngineerQuejada
inhisreportsubmittedtothetrialcourtwherehestatedamongotherthings:[22]
7. that upon computation of actual survey, it is informed (sic) that the area dated (sic) as per extrajudicial settlement
partitioninthenameofCelestinoArbizowassmallerthanthecomputedlotsoftheiractualoccupancyaspersurveyon
theground
8.The Lot A, Lot B, and Lot C as appearing on prepared plan for ready reference was subdivided, base (sic) on stated
sharingasperEXTRAJUDICIALSETTLEMENTPARTITIONbase(sic)onactualoccupancy.

The survey conducted on Lot 1121 was only a confirmation of the actual areas being occupied by the heirs taking into
accountthepercentageproportionadjudicatedtoeachheironthebasisoftheirAugust17,1981extrajudicialsettlement.
Petitionerfurtherallegesthatthesaidpartitiontriestovestinfavorofathirdperson,MariaArbizo,arightoverthesaid
propertynotwithstandingtheabsenceofevidenceestablishingthatsheisanheirofthelateCelestinoArbizosinceMaria
ArbizowasneverimpleadedasapartyinthiscaseandherinterestoverLot1121wasnotestablished.
Suchcontentiondeservesscantconsideration.Wefindnocompellingbasistodisturbthefindingofthetrialcourton
thisfactualissue,asfollows:[23]

Ineffect,thedefendantdeniestheallegationoftheplaintiffthatMariaArbizowasthethirdwifeofCelestinoArbizo
andAgripinaisherhalfsisterwithacommonfather.Onthispoint,theCourtbelievestheversionoftheplaintiff.
TheCourtobservesthatintheExtraJudicialSettlementPartition(ExhibitC),MariaArbizoisnamedoneoftheco
heirsofthedefendant,beingthewidowofhisgrandfather,CelestinoArbizo.ThenamesofAnacletoandAgripinado
notalsoappearintheExtrajudicialSettlementandPartitionbecauseaccordingtotheplaintiff,theyhadsoldtheir
sharestoMariaArbizo.AndthedefendantisoneofthesignatoriestothesaidDeedofExtrajudicialSettlement
PartitionacknowledgedbeforeNotaryPublicArtemioMaranon.Underthecircumstances,theCourtisconvinced
thatthedefendantknewthatMariaArbizowasthewidowofCelestinoArbizoandheknewofthesaleoftheshare
ofAnacletoArbizohisshare,aswellasthatofAgripina.WhenthedefendantsignedtheExtraJudicialSettlement,
hewasalreadyanadultsincewhenhetestifiedin1989,hegavehisageas50yearsold.Sothatin1981,hewas
already41yearsold.Ifhedidnotknowallofthese,thedefendantwouldhavenotagreedtothesharingandsigned
thisdocumentandacknowledgeditbeforetheNotaryPublic.Andwhocouldhaveabetterknowledgeofthe
relationshipofAgripinaandMariaArbizotoCelestinoArbizothanthelattersdaughter?Besides,atthetimeofthe
executionoftheExtraJudicialSettlementPartitionbytheplaintiffanddefendant,theywerestillingoodterms.
TherewasnoreasonfortheplaintifftofavorMariaArbizoandAgripinaArbizooverthedefendant.Furthermore,
thedefendanthadfailedtosupporthisallegationthatwhenhisgrandfatherdiedhehadnowifeandchild.
WelikewisefindunmeritoriouspetitionersclaimthatthereexistnofactualandlegalbasisfortheadjudicationofLotC
of Lot 1121 to private respondent Aurora Directo. It bears stress that the relocation survey plan prepared by Geodetic
EngineerQuejadawasbasedontheextrajudicialsettlementdatedAugust17,1981,andtheactualpossessionbytheparties
andthetechnicaldescriptionofLot1121.Itwasestablishedbythesurveyplanthatbasedontheactualpossessionofthe
parties,andtheextrajudicialsettlementamongtheheirstheportiondenominatedasLotCofLot1121ofthesurveyplan
wasbeingoccupiedbyprivaterespondentAuroraDirectoanditwasalsoshownthatitisinLotCwherethe625square
meterareadonatedbyprivaterespondentDirectotopetitionerislocated.ThereisnoobstacletoadjudicateLotCtoprivate
respondentasherrightfulshareallottedtoherintheextrajudicialsettlement.
PetitionerarguesthathedidnotusurpthepropertyofrespondentDirectosince,todate,themetesandboundsofthe
parceloflandleftbytheirpredecessorininterest,CelestinoArbizo,arestillundeterminedsincenofinaldeterminationasto
theexactareasproperlypertainingtothepartieshereinhencetheyarestillconsideredascoownersthereof.

Wedonotagree.
Inthiscasethesourceofcoownershipamongtheheirswasintestatesuccession.Wheretherearetwoormoreheirs,the
wholeestateofthedecedentis,beforeitspartition,ownedincommonbysuchheirssubjecttothepaymentofdebtsofthe
deceased.[24] Partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held in common among those to
whomitmaybelong.[25]Thepurposeofpartitionistoputanendtocoownership.Itseeksaseveranceoftheindividual
interestofeachcoowner,vestingineachasoleestateinspecificpropertyandgivingtoeachonearighttoenjoyhisestate
withoutsupervisionorinterferencefromtheother.[26]Andonewayofeffectingapartitionofthedecedentsestateisbythe
heirsthemselvesextrajudicially.The heirs of the late Celestino Arbizo namely Maria Arbizo, Aurora A. Directo (private
respondent)andRodolfoNoceda(petitioner)enteredintoanextrajudicialsettlementoftheestateonAugust17,1981and
agreedtoadjudicateamongthemselvesthepropertyleftbytheirpredecessorininterestinthefollowingmanner:

ToRodolfoNocedagoesthenorthernonefifth(1/5)portioncontaininganareaof5,989sq.meters
ToMariaArbizogoesthemiddlethreefifths(3/5)portion
andToAuroraArbizogoesthesouthernonefifth(1/5)portion.[27]
In the survey plan submitted by Engineer Quejada, the portions indicated by red lines and numbered alphabetically were
basedonthepercentageproportionintheextrajudicialsettlementandtheactualoccupancyofeachheirwhichresultedto
thesedivisionsasfollows:[28]

LotAtheareais2,957sq.m.goestoRodolfoA.Noceda(1/5)
LotB38,872sq.mMariaArbizo(3/5)
LotC12,957sq.m.AuroraArbizo(1/5)
Thus, the areas allotted to each heir are now specifically delineated in the survey plan. There is no coownership where
portion owned is concretely determined and identifiable, though not technically described, or that said portions are still
embraced in one and the same certificate of title does not make said portions less determinable or identifiable, or
distinguishable, one from the other, nor that dominion over each portion less exclusive, in their respective owners.[29] A
partitionlegallymadeconfersuponeachheirtheexclusiveownershipofthepropertyadjudicatedtohim.[30]
Wealsofindunmeritoriouspetitionersargumentthatsincetherewasnoeffectiveandrealpartitionofthesubjectlot
thereexistsnobasisforthechargeofusurpationandhencethereisalsonobasisforfindingingratitudeagainsthim.Itwas
established that petitioner Noceda occupied not only the portion donated to him by private respondent Aurora Arbizo
Directo but he also fenced the whole area of Lot C which belongs to private respondent Directo, thus petitioners act of
occupying the portion pertaining to private respondent Directo without the latters knowledge and consent is an act of
usurpationwhichisanoffenseagainstthepropertyofthedonorandconsideredasanactofingratitudeofadoneeagainst
thedonor.[31] The law does not require conviction of the donee it is enough that the offense be proved in the action for
revocation.[32]
Finally,petitionercontendsthatgrantingrevocationisproper,therighttoenforcethesamehadalreadyprescribedsince
asadmittedbyprivaterespondent,petitionerusurpedherpropertyinthefirstweekofSeptember1985whilethecomplaint
for revocation was filed on September 16, 1986, thus more than one (1) year had passed from the alleged usurpation by
petitionerofprivaterespondentsshareinLot1121.Wearenotpersuaded.TherespondentCourtrejectedsuchargumentin
thiswise:

Article769oftheNewCivilCodestatesthat:Theactiongrantedtothedonorbyreasonofingratitudecannotbe
renouncedinadvance.Thisactionprescribeswithinoneyeartobecountedfromthetimethedonorhadknowledge
ofthefactanditwaspossibleforhimtobringtheaction.Asexpresslystated,thedonormustfiletheactionto
revokehisdonationwithinoneyearfromthetimehehadknowledgeoftheingratitudeofthedonee.Also,itmustbe
shownthatitwaspossibleforthedonortoinstitutethesaidactionwithinthesameperiod.Theconcurrenceofthese
tworequisitesmustbeshownbydefendantNocedainordertobarthepresentaction.DefendantNocedafailedtodo
so.Hereckonedtheoneyearprescriptiveperiodfromtheoccurrenceoftheusurpationofthepropertyofplaintiff
DirectointhefirstweekofSeptember,1985,andnotfromthetimethelatterhadtheknowledgeoftheusurpation.

Moreover,defendantNocedafailedtoprovethatatthetimeplaintiffDirectoacquiredknowledgeofhisusurpation,
itwaspossibleforplaintiffDirectotoinstituteanactionforrevocationofherdonation.
Theactiontorevokebyreasonofingratitudeprescribeswithinone(1)yeartobecountedfromthetime(a)thedonor
hadknowledgeofthefact(b)providedthatitwaspossibleforhimtobringtheaction.Itisincumbentuponpetitionerto
show proof of the concurrence of these two conditions in order that the one (1) year period for bringing the action be
considered to have already prescribed. No competent proof was adduced by petitioner to prove his allegation. In Civil
Cases,thepartyhavingtheburdenofproofmustestablishhiscasebypreponderanceofevidence.[33]Hewhoallegesafact
hastheburdenofprovingitandamereallegationisnotevidence.[34]
FactualfindingsoftheCourtofAppeals,supportedbysubstantialevidenceonrecordarefinalandconclusiveonthe
partiesandcarryevenmoreweightwhentheCourtofAppealsaffirmsthefactualfindingsofthetrialcourt[35]foritisnot
thefunctionofthisCourttoreexaminealloveragaintheoralanddocumentaryevidencesubmittedbythepartiesunlessthe
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are not supported by the evidence on record or the judgment is based on the
misapprehension of facts.[36] The jurisdiction of this court is thus limited to reviewing errors of law unless there is a
showingthatthefindingscomplainedofaretotallydevoidofsupportintherecordorthattheyaresoglaringlyerroneousas
toconstituteseriousabuseofdiscretion.[37]Wefindnosuchshowinginthiscase.
WefindthatboththetrialcourtandtherespondentCourthadcarefullyconsideredthequestionsoffactraisedbelow
and the respondent Courts conclusions are based on the evidence on record.No cogent reason exists for disturbing such
findings.[38] We also note that petitioner in this petition merely rehashed the same issues and arguments raised in the
respondentCourtinwhosedecisionwefindnoreversibleerror.Clearly,petitionerfailedtopresentanysubstantialargument
tojustifyareversaloftheassaileddecision.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewisherebyDENIED.Costsagainstappellant.
SOORDERED.
Melo,(Chairman),Vitug,Panganiban,andPurisima,JJ.,concur.
[1]PennedbyJusticeJaimeM.Lantin,concurredinbyJusticesMa.AliciaAustriaMartinezandBernardoLL.Salas.
[2]DocketedasCivilCaseNo.RTC354I.
[3]Rollo,pp.3335.
[4]Records,pp.209210.
[5]Rollo,p.41.
[6]Rollo,pp.1112.
[7]Records,p.54.
[8]Records,pp.5657.
[9]Ibid,p.59.
[10]Ibid,p.61.
[11]Ibid,pp.6364.
[12]Ibid,p.66.
[13]Ibid,p.81,ExhibitF.
[14]TSN,November14,1988,pp.23.
[15]Ibid,p.4.
[16]Ibid,p.87.
[17]DirectorofLandsvs.Funtilar,142SCRA57DolomiteMiningCorporationvs.Montalbo,217SCRA687.

[18]Rollo,pp.3637.
[19]Records,p.171.
[20]ServicewideSpecialists,Inc.vs.CA,251SCRA70.
[21]Rollo,pp.3738.
[22]ExhibitF,Records,p.82.
[23]Records,p.206.
[24]Article1078oftheCivilCode.
[25]Article1079oftheCivilCode.
[26]Villamorvs.CA,162SCRA574citingConfesorvs.Pelayo,111Phil.416.
[27]Records,p.6,ExhibitC.
[28]Rollo,p.84,ExhibitE.
[29]DelaCruzvs.Cruz,32SCRA307.
[30]Article1091oftheCivilCode.
[31]Art.765.Thedonationmayalsoberevokedattheinstanceofthedonor,byreasonofingratitudeinthefollowingcases:
(1)Ifthedoneeshouldcommitsomeoffenseagainsttheperson,thehonororthepropertyofthedonor,orofhiswifeorchildrenunderhisparental
authority
(2)xxx.
[32]Tolentino,VolumeII,1992edition,p.575,citing7Colin&Capitant638.
[33]NewTestamentChurchofGodvs.CA,246SCRA266Sapuanvs.CA,214SCRA701.
[34]P.T.CernaCorporationvs.CA,221SCRA19.
[35]Menesesvs.CA,246SCRA162FortuneMotors(Phils.)Corp.vs.CA,267SCRA653.
[36]Navarrovs.CA,209SCRA613Remalantevs.Tibe,et.al.,158SCRA138PantrancoNorthExpressInc.vs.CA,224SCRA477.
[37]BAFinanceCorporationvs.CA,229SCRA566Limvs.CA,158SCRA307Samsonvs.CA,141SCRA194.
[38]HeirsofJoseOlvigavs.CA,227SCRA330.