MORALES

MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP - DONATION

REPUBLIC V. GUZMAN

FEBRUARY 18, 2000 G.R. NO. 132964 BELOSILLO, J

RECIT READY SYNOPSIS

 Relevant Fact:
1. The respondent, David Rey Guzman, is the son of Simeon and Helen Guzman, where they are all
American citizens with Simeon being a Naturalized American Citizen.
2. However, sometime in 1968, Simeon died leaving to his sole heirs Helen and David an estate
consisting of several parcels of land located somewhere in Sta. Maria, Bulacan.
3. Thereafter, Helen and David executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Simeon
Guzman in order for them to divide and adjudicated to themselves all the property belonging to the
estate of Simeon.
4. Then, sometime later, Helen executed two Quitclaim Deeds assigning, transferring and conveying
to her son David her undivided one-half (1/2) interest on all the parcels of land subject matter of the
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Simeon Guzman as well as all of her other properties
in the Philippines.
5. However, a lawyer named Atty. Mario Batongbacal contested David’s ownership of the one-half
(1/2) estate of Simeon Guzman where the former furnished the Office of the Solicitor General
documents which showed that the latter’s ownership was defective.
6. Thus, the Government filed before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan a Petition for Escheat so that the
one-half (1/2) of David’s interest in each of the subject parcels of land be forfeited in its favor.
 Relevant Issue:
1. Whether or not the subject quitclaims are in the nature of donation? (Main Issue)
2. Whether or not there is an effective conveyance of the parcels of land by way of inter vivos?
 Held:
1. No. The court ruled in the negative and held that the subject quitclaims are not in the nature of
donation. As the court stated in this case, there are three (3) essential elements of a donation.
First, the reduction of the patrimony of the donor, second, the increase in the patrimony of the
done, and third, the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi. But in this case, not all the
elements of a donation of an immovable property are present. This is because even though the
transfer of the 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
done, Helen's intention to perform an act of liberality in favor of David was not sufficiently
established. Moreover, the language of the deed of quitclaim is clear that Helen merely
contemplated a waiver of her rights, title and interest over the lands in favor of David, and not a
donation. Thus, the element of animus donandi was missing.

2. No. The court ruled that 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 proper form
required by law to make the donation valid. Not only that, the court noted that it is mandated that
if an acceptance is made in a separate public writing, the notice of the acceptance must be noted
not only in the document containing the acceptance but also in the deed of donation. But in this
case, it was neither found in the deeds nor in the Special Power of Attorney ithat there is
acceptance by David of the two (2) quitclaim deeds for the conveyance of the parcels of land by
Helen in the latter’s favor of David. Therefore, the provisions of the law not having been complied
1
 with, there was no effective conveyance of the parcels of land by way of
donation inter vivos.
Doctrines from Rabuya (pp. 625,678 – 2008 edition ):
 Essential elements of donation:

1. Essential reduction of the patrimony of the donor;

2. Increase in the patrimony of the donee;

3. Intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi

 It is well-settled that if the notification and notation are not complied with, the donation is void

FACTS
 The respondent, David Rey Guzman, is the son of Simeon and Helen Guzman, where they are all
American citizens with Simeon being a Naturalized American Citizen.
 However, sometime in 1968, Simeon died leaving to his sole heirs Helen and David an estate
consisting of several parcels of land located somewhere in Sta. Maria, Bulacan.
 Thereafter, Helen and David executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Simeon
Guzman in order for them to divide and adjudicated to themselves all the property belonging to
the estate of Simeon.
 Then, sometime later, Helen executed two Quitclaim Deeds assigning, transferring and conveying
to her son David her undivided one-half (1/2) interest on all the parcels of land subject matter of
the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Simeon Guzman as well as all of her other
properties in the Philippines.
 However, a lawyer named Atty. Mario Batongbacal contested David’s ownership of the one-half
(1/2) estate of Simeon Guzman where the former furnished the Office of the Solicitor General
documents which showed that the latter’s ownership was defective.
 Thus, the Government filed before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan a Petition for Escheat so that the
one-half (1/2) of David’s interest in each of the subject parcels of land be forfeited in its favor.
 Then, the trial court dismissed the petition holding that the two (2) deeds of quitclaim executed by
Helen Meyers Guzman had no legal force and effect so that the ownership of the property subject
thereof remained with her. Because of that, the Government appealed the dismissal of the petition
but the appellate court affirmed the court a quo.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not the subject quitclaims are in the nature of donation? (Main Issue)
2. Whether or not there is an effective conveyance of the parcels of land by way of inter vivos?
RULING

2
1. No. The court ruled in the negative and held that the subject quitclaims are not in the nature of
donation. As the court stated in this case, there are three (3) essential elements of a donation. First, the
reduction of the patrimony of the donor, second, the increase in the patrimony of the done, and third,
the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi. But in this case, not all the elements of a donation
of an immovable property are present. This is because even though the transfer of the 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, Helen's intention to perform an act of liberality
in favor of her son was not sufficiently established.

Moreover, the language of the deed of quitclaim is clear that Helen merely contemplated a waiver of her
rights, title and interest over the lands in favor of David, and not a donation. Not only that, it appears that
foremost in Helen's mind was the preservation of the Bulacan realty within the bloodline of Simeon from
where they originated, over and above the benefit that would accrue to David by reason of her
renunciation. Thus, the element of animus donandi was missing.

2. No. The court ruled that 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 proper form required by law
to make the donation valid. Not only that, the court noted that it is mandated that if an acceptance is
made in a separate public writing, the notice of the acceptance must be noted not only in the document
containing the acceptance but also in the deed of donation.

According to Manresa, citing Art. 633 of the Civil Code in relation to Art. 749 of the same Code, “if the
acceptance does not appear in the same document, it must be made in another. Solemn words are not
necessary because it is sufficient that it shows the intention to accept, and that it is necessary that formal
notice thereof be given to the donor. With that being said, due notice given must be noted in both
instruments. Hence, it is only when the foregoing happens that the donation is perfected."

But in this case, it was neither found in the deeds nor in the Special Power of Attorney that there is
acceptance by David of the two (2) quitclaim deeds for the conveyance of the parcels of land by Helen in
the latter’s favor. Further, the records reveal no other instrument that evidences notice thereof to the
donor in an authentic manner. This is because the court noted that if the notification and notation are
notcomplied with, the donation is void. Therefore, the provisions of the law not having been complied
with, there was no effective conveyance of the parcels of land by way of donation inter vivos.