SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 234502. October 10, 2018.]

AGUINALDO PATANGAN, DEMOSTHENES PATANGAN, 1

PATROCINIA PATANGAN PULVERA, 2 PRISCILLA PATANGAN
REYES, 3 PLACIDO P. REYES, JR., AND VICENTE P. REYES , 4
petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF MARGARITO PATANGAN AND
SPOUSES CHESTER B. AND ELSIE O. ARADO, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 10 October 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234502 (Aguinaldo Patangan, Demosthenes
Patangan, Patrocinia Patangan Pulvera, Priscilla Patangan Reyes,
Placido P. Reyes, Jr., and Vicente P. Reyes v. Heirs of Margarito
Patangan and Spouses Chester B. and Elsie O. Arado)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the
instant petition 5 and AFFIRM the April 24, 2017 Decision 6 and the August
16, 2017 Resolution 7 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04154-
MIN for failure of petitioners Aguinaldo Patangan (Aguinaldo), Demosthenes
Patangan, Patrocinia Patangan Pulvera, Priscilla Patangan Reyes, Placido P.
Reyes, Jr., and Vicente P. Reyes (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA
committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal 8 by the Regional
Trial Court of Mambajao, Camiguin, Branch 28 (RTC) of their Complaint 9 for
Specific Performance and Injunction with Damages against respondents
Heirs of Margarito Patangan (Margarito's heirs) and Spouses Chester B. and
Elsie O. Arado (Spouses Arado), docketed as Civil Case No. 689. acEHCD

As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners cannot compel Margarito's

heirs to execute a deed of conveyance over the portion of the land subject of
the Agreement executed by Margarito Patangan (Margarito) in favor of
Aguinaldo. 10 The said agreement partakes of a donation which must appear
in a public instrument and accepted by the donee in order to be valid; failing
in which, the said agreement is void and inexistent. 11 Contrary to
petitioners' claim, 12 Article 1357 13 of the Civil Code does not apply since
the formalities that the donation of an immovable property be embodied in a
public instrument 14 and accepted by the donee in the manner provided by
law 15 are absolute and indispensable requirements for the validity of the
donation. Consequently, the parties may not exercise the right to compel the
execution of the required document or form pursuant to the said article. 16
The CA was likewise correct in upholding the RTC's ruling that
Margarito's heirs are not obliged to abide by the terms of the Agreement
executed by Margarito in favor of petitioners, and the Compromise
Agreement executed by Margarito's heirs before the Office of the Barangay
Captain of Brgy. Poblacion, Mahinog, Camiguin. 17 The stipulation not to sell
the subject land to any person except to petitioners and their heirs for an
unspecified period constitutes an undue restriction on Margarito's right to
freely dispose of his property, 18 which is void. Case law states that the
prohibition to sell to third parties, which is indefinite and unlimited as to
time, virtually amounts to a perpetual restriction on the right of ownership,
specifically the owner's right to freely dispose of his properties, and is
considered a nullity. 19 Accordingly, there is no reason to rescind the Deed of
Absolute Sale 20 executed by Margarito's heirs in favor of Spouses Arado
covering the disputed 269 square-meter portion of the subject land.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated as Additional Member
per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.) SDHTEC

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTO

Division Clerk of Court

By:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Erroneously referred to as "Demosthenes Patangan" in the petition. See rollo, p.

17.

2. "Patrocinia Patangan-De Pulvera" in some parts of the rollo; see id . at 139.

3. "Priscilla Patangan-De Reyes" in some parts of the rollo; see id .

4. See id . at 46.

5. Id. at 17-44.

6. Id. at 202-210. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate

Justices Romulo V. Borja and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring.

7. Id. at 226-227.

8. See Judgment dated September 7, 2015 penned by Acting Presiding Judge

Giovanni Alfred H. Navarro; id. at 155-164.

9. Dated July 1, 2004. Id. at 47-52.

10. See id . at 208-209.

11. See id . at 207.

12. See id . at 27.

13. Articles 1357 and 734 of the Civil Code respectively provide:

  Article 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the
acts and contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting
parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract
has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the
action upon the contract.

  Article 734. The donation is perfected from the moment the donor
knows of the acceptance by the donee. (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)

14. Article 749 of the Civil Code provides:

  Article 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid,

it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property
donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.

  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
during the lifetime of the donor .

  If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be

notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both
instruments. (Emphases supplied)

15. Articles 745, 746, and 747 of the Civil Code provide:

  Article 745. The donee must accept the donation personally, or through
an authorized person with a special power for the purpose, or with a general
and sufficient power; otherwise, the donation shall be void.

  Article 746. Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor
and of the donee.

  Article 747. Persons who accept donations in representation of others who

may not do so by themselves, shall be obliged to make the notification and
notation of which Article 749 speaks. (Emphases supplied)

16. Article 1356 of the Civil Code provides:

  Article 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have
been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are
present. However, when the law requires that a contract be in some
form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be
proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and
indispensable. In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the
following article cannot be exercised. (Emphases and underscoring
supplied)

17. See rollo, pp. 208-209.

18. See id . at 207.

19. See Leal v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 239 Phil. 377, 383 (1987).

20. See rollo, pp. 146-147.