Professional Documents
Culture Documents
W13 Property Law Finals
W13 Property Law Finals
Uploaded by
MARCK JULLIAN ALFONSOOriginal Description:
Original Title
Copyright
Available Formats
Share this document
Did you find this document useful?
Is this content inappropriate?
Report this DocumentCopyright:
Available Formats
W13 Property Law Finals
W13 Property Law Finals
Uploaded by
MARCK JULLIAN ALFONSOCopyright:
Available Formats
WEEK 13 PROPERTY LAW FINALS
ALFONSO | 3LM2
NATURE OF DONATIONS
a. Memorize Article 725.
Art. 725.Donationis anact of liberalitywherebya persondisposes gratuitouslyof a thing or
r ight in favor of another,who accepts it.
ONATION (LGA)
D
-Act ofLiberallity,Gratuitously, andNeeds Acceptance.
-Mode of Acquiring OWNERSHIP
-Does not require deliveryexcept in ORAL Donation
-Civil code considers donation as a contract as it REQUIRES ACCEPTANCE. (Law applies to inter
vivos donations)
-Donation is aBILATERALContract,need of acceptance
-Also aUNILATERALcontractbecause it imposes obligationson the donor.
b. essential elements of a donation
(RIL)
) The EssentialREDUCTIONof the patrimonyof the donor
a
b) INCREASEin the patrimony of the donee
c) Intentto do an act ofliberalityorANIMUS DONANDI
- Real property, need SPA/PUBLIC INSTRUMENT
-Acceptance must be noted in the same, or a separate PUBLIC INSTRUMENT
-PERFECTEDfrom themoment the donor is made awareof the ACCEPTANCEof the donee.
-Doneeshould notbeprohibited/disqualifiedto acceptdonation (disqualified by marriage etc.)
-Irrevocable when accepted
-Donee becomes absolute ownerexcept:
-account ofofficiousness,failureto complywith thecharge imposedin donation,ingratitude.
Acceptanceof donation must be madewithinthe lifetimeof BOTH the donor and donee.
c. requisites of consent in donation?
Consent(IFS)
a) Should beINTELLIGENTor with anEXACT NOTIONof thematter to which it refers
b) Should beFREE
c) Should beSPONTANEOUS
Parties’ Intention must be CLEAR, a VICE OF CONSENT renders the donation VOIDABLE.
d.significanceof acceptance?
Although donation is unilateral,ACCEPTANCE is NECESSARYto make it effective.
NO ACCEPTANCE = NO DONATION
No one can be COMPELLEDtoaccepttheliberalityofthe supposed donor
(Ayaw mo magbayad ng estate tax, bakit ka tatanggap ng lupa)
e. classificationsof donations.
e.1. A.From the viewpoint of effectivity:
1. MORTIS CAUSA (MC)
- Take effectuponthe DEATHof thedonor.
- LEGACIESanddevisesin the law onTESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION.
- Ex: A legacy given to someone in aWILLwhichbecomeseffectiveafter the DEATHof the
donor.
2. INTER VIVOS (IV) (f. Discuss the Inter Vivos donations)
- Take effectDURING the LIFETIMEof the donor.
- KINDS of DONATION:
- 1.SIMPLE (PURE) donation- one which is NOT subjectto any condition
- 2.REMUNERATORY(compensatory)- one which remunerates(p ays back) the past
services of the donee whichDO NOT constitute demandabledebts against the
donor.
- 3.CONDITIONAL- one wherein donorimposes to thedonee a CONDITION
dependent on the happening of a future or past event UNKNOWN to the parties.
- 4.MODAL- donation subject to burdens or charges(Valid if submits to will of DONOR)
- 5.ONEROUS- onemade forvaluable consideration,considered theequivalentof
the donation.
Ex: Adonation given in compensation for a recoverabledebtwhich is demandable
against the donor. NOT a donation, but a contract governed by the law on oblicon. The
form of a donation is NOT required.
e.2.B. From thepoint of view of object(RPA)
1. Donations ofREALPROPERTY(R
ealty)
2. Donations ofPERSONALPROPERTY (Personalty
3. Donations ofALIENABLERIGHTS (Credits)
C. From the point of view of Its relation toMARRIAGE:
1. DonationPROPTER NUPTIAS
- (by reason of marriage) arewithout onerous consideration,the marriage being merely the
occasion or motive for the donation,not causa. Beingliberalities, they remain subject to
reduction forinofficiousness (inconsistent w/ morals)upon the donor's death,if they
should infringe the legitime of a forced heir.
2. Ordinary Donation
- Donationsmade from income or cash floware known as “ordinary” donations
g. Discuss Article 726.
rt.726.When a person gives to another a thing or right on account of the latter's merits or of the
A
services rendered by him to the donor, provided they do not constitute a demandable debt,// or //
when the gift imposes upon the donee a burden which is less than the value of the thing given,
there is also a donation.
First part,REMUNERATORY, Second,MODAL
1. REMUNERATORYdonations
- Thosewhich remunerate (PAY BACK) the past services already rendered by
the donee to the donor provided the same DO NOT constitute demandable
debts.
- Donations made in recognition of the merits of the donee are remuneratory.
Ex: Miss Universe, for honor to ph.
Not Demandable Debt-Didnot create any obligation enforceable. (Saved from flood)
2. MODALdonations
- If a burden or charge is imposed on the donee,which is LESSER in value than the
thing donated.
- Charge is known as MODE
- A charge is an obligation imposed by the donor to the donee. It is a mere restriction
on the benefit given to the donee, does not affect rights of the donee.
- Ex: Donation of land to stateto make it apublicpark, donation of property to church
to be usedEXCLUSIVELYfor education.A donation whichthe condition is to lessen
other family member expenses upon death.
. Discuss theeffectof an illegal or impossible conditionin simple and remuneratory
h
donations?
(Art. 727)
rt. 727.Illegal or impossible conditionsin simple and remuneratory donationsshall be
A
considered as not imposed.
FFECTSof Imposition of Illegal or Impossible Conditions
E
-Impossible conditions - those contrary to good customs, public policy or prohibited by
law.
I. What is animpossible condition?
KindsofIMPOSSIBILITY:
1. JURIDICAL-Contrary to law, good customs, public policy
2. PHYSICAL- Contradictslaw of nature (a dead person must live after death)
I F Illegal or Impossible conditionsare imposed on a pure, or remuneratory donation,they are
deemedNOT IMPOSED at all.
hedonation REMAINS VALID without the conditions. Same rule followed in testamentary
T
succession.Both are GRATUITOUS mode of transmitting ownership.
nerous Donations are NOT covered by the article. They are covered by OBLICON.
O
Onerousdonations withimpossible conditions=VOID.
j. Whatlawgoverns donationsmortis causa? (Art.728)
rt. 728. Donations which are totake effect upon the death of the donorpartake of the nature
A
oftestamentary provisions, and shall be governed by the rules established in theTitle on
Succession.
GOVERNED BY RULES ON TITLE ON SUCCESSION.
k. What are thecharacteristicsof a donationmortiscausa?
1. ItConveys NO Title or Ownershipto the transfereeBEFORE the deathof the transferor;transferor
SHOULD retain CONTROLandOWNERSHIP (Full or Naked)of the property WHILE ALIVE
2. Before his death,transfer should be REVOCABLE by the transferor AT WILL;revocability may be
provided for INDIRECTLY by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties
conveyed
3. Transfer should be VOID if the transferor should survive the transferee(donee dies first)
l. Discuss Article 729.
rt. 729. When the donor intends that the donation shall take effect during the lifetime of the donor,
A
though the property shall not be delivered till after the donor's death, this shall be a donationinter
vivos.The fruits of the property from the time ofthe acceptance of the donation, shall pertain to the
donee, unless the donor provides otherwise.
m. Distinguish between a donation mortis causa and a donation inter vivos.
Basis Mortis Causa Inter Vivos
Effectivity ffectiveAFTERthe death of E
E ffectiveDURINGthe lifetime
the donor of the donor
Formalities ormalities ofWILLSor
F ormalities ofDONATION (if
F
CODICILS must be followed simple and ordinary) must
be followed
Acceptance cceptance must be made
A cceptance MUST be made
A
AFTER the death of the DURING the lifetime of the
donor, the donation being donor.
ffective only AFTER the
e
death of the donor.
cceptance during the
A
donor’s lifetime is premature
and ineffective becausethere
can be no contract re:
future inheritance
ransfer of ownership for
T wnership is transferred
O wnership isimmediately
O
right of disposition after death. transferred. Delivery of
possession is ALLOWED
after death (Usufruct)
Revocability RevocableAD NUTUM OT REVOCABLEexcept
N
( Discretion of donor) at for grounds provided by law
ANYTIME during the (inofficious – relating to a
lifetime of the donor. disposition of property that
Revocable like a will has the effect of depriving
descendants of the shares of
a succession to which they
are entitled by law.) *lugi ka
pa* , failure to comply with
imposed conditions *modal*
and Ingratitude)
Reduction or Suppression hen it is excessive or
W hen it is excessive or
W
inofficious (impairing inofficious, being preferred, it
legitimes of compulsory is reduced only after the
heirs), it is reduced FIRST or donations Mortis Causa had
even suppressed. been reduced or exhausted
n. Discuss thetests to determine whether a donationis mortis causa or inter vivos.
W
● hat is Controlling is theNATUREof the act and itseffectivity.
● If the act is one of disposition, andeffectiveindependentlyof the donor’s death,it is an INTER
VIVOS donation.
● If it is one of disposition, but itseffectivity isdependent upon the death of the donor, it is a
MORTIS CAUSA donation.
Ifownership of propertyisreserved to the donorduring his lifetime, donation is MORTIS CAUSA. If
what isreserved is only the usufruct, it is donation INTER VIVOS. (If he is still owner, he doesn’t need
usufruct)
When the donor reserved the right to revoke donation, it is MORTIS CAUSA.
In donation in praesanti(inter vivos), the donation is effective during the lifetime of the donor, but the
delivery of the possession of the property shall be after the death of the donor.
Mortis Causa:
1. ItConveys NO Title or Ownership to the transfereeBEFORE the deathof the transferor;
transferor SHOULD retain CONTROL and OWNERSHIP (Full or Naked) of the property
WHILE ALIVE
2. Before his death, transfer should be REVOCABLE by the transferor AT WILL; revocability
may be provided for INDIRECTLY by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the
properties conveyed
3. Transfer should be VOID if the transferor should survive the transferee(donee dies first)
Other Cases:
Mortis Causa:
1. When ownership isreserved by donor
a. When donorretains fullornaked ownershipandcontrol while still alive, MC
b. When donortransferredto thedoneetheMERE ADMINISTRATION onlyMC
c. When thedeed provided that title shall pass ONLY after the donor’s deathMC
2. When donorreserved the option to revoke:
a. Whendonor reserved option to revoke without consent of donee, MC
b. Whendonation will be void if the donee dies ahead of donor,MC
3.Prohibition to donee to alienate property during donor’s lifetime:
a. When donor reserved the usufruct to herself and in addition, prohibited the donees to alienate
or encumber the properties without her consent,MC
Inter Vivos:
1. W hen the donorreserved for himself a lifetime usufructover the property,which is unnecessary
if he were STILL the owner.IV
2. When the donor warrants the title to the property he is donating, implying the transfer of the title to the
donee.IV
3. When the donor stated in the deed that he would not dispose of the property because it is reserved to
donee upon his death, he has already waived his right to dispose,IV.
4. When the donor immediately transferred the ownership, possession and administration of property to
donee, but the fruits shall pertain to donor during his lifetime,IV.(USUFRUCT IS RESERVED TO
DONOR,DIFFERENT FROM ONLY ADMINISTRATIONWAS TRANSFERRED“MC”)
5. When the causes of revocation are specified in the deed of donation,IV.
6. An acceptance clause is a mark that the donation is IV.
7. WHen the deed of donation provides that the donor will not dispose or take away the property
donated, he is in effect making a donation IV. The prohibition to alienate does not defeat the IV
character of a donation.
o. What is theruleif there isdoubton the natureof a donation?
In case of doubt on title of deed, what will prevail will be the dispositions stated in the body thereof. Thus if the
donor used the term mortis causa, but provisions clearly show donation Inter Vivos, then it isInter vivos.
If the title is Inter Vivos but provisions clearly speak of donation Mortis Causa, then it is Mortis Causa.
IN DOUBT = CONSTRUED AS BODY OF PROVISIONS/ STIPULATION.
o.1. [1st Case] Discuss Del Rosario v. Ferrer.
asically:Spouses assigned a will named MC, but actuallyIV, it was a irrevocable, clear sign na
B
Inter vivos nga, and nakalagay don na a parent surviving can have full control of it. Now yung
leopoldo na tatay, ni reassign bago siya mamatay para kay asuncion, but yung granddaughter nag
rereklamo kasi gusto na nya kunin, but sabi ni asuncion sakanya, The RTC ruled na hindi pwede
ibigay ni asuncion ang hindi na kanya kasi nga IV nga yun, meaning immediate na napasa sa mga
anak ang rights, wala na siyang ibibigay, Ni reverse naman ng CA saying hindi naka form ang MC
na hindi naman talaga MC, void daw to, inappeal naman ito sa SC, SC ruled that tama ang RTC
because the title of the donation is not controlling / immaterial to the content of the provisions of
donation. REINSTATES the RTC ruling, ang ascunsions din naman nag oppose sa probate,
therefore hindi colaterally inataka ng court ang topics na yun, sila ang nag open up. Dahil
irrevocable daw ang IV, automatic na pala na nagawa ang will na yun upon execution.
. 730 What is theeffectof asuspensive conditiontaking placebeyond the natural lifeof the
p
donor on the donation? (Art. 730)
rt. 730. The fixing of an event or the imposition of a suspensive condition,which may take place
A
beyond the natural expectation of life of the donor, does not destroy the nature of the act
as a donation inter vivos,unless a contrary intention appears.
- If a suspensive condition had been imposed on the donation,but which may take place
after the death of the donor, the same doesnot change the nature of a donation inter
vivos into one of mortis causa.EXCEPTION: if a contrary intention appears in the deed of
donation.
donated B a land,condition:to make playground for children in community. A died without seeing
A
said playground, but it was built after A’s death. The donationREMAINS INTER VIVOS, in the
absence of any contrary intention.
HEN A SUSPENSIVE CONDITION IS FULFILLED, it’s effectRETROACTS to the TIME OF
W
EXECUTION of the donation.
r. What is theeffectof aresolutoryconditionof the donor’s survival on the donation? (Art. 731)
rt. 731.When a person donates something,subject to the resolutory condition of the donor's
A
survival, there is a donationinter vivos.
Army dude donates land, but revokes it if he lives during the mission.
s. Distinguish between asuspensivecondition and aresolutorycondition?
uspensivecondition - is an event until the completionof which the donation is suspended. Upon fulfillment
S
of the condition, the donation takes effect. This can take place beyond the life of the donor, and still inter vivos
Ex: Donates land for a playground exclusively.
esolutorycondition - onethe happening of which terminates an obligation.When a donation is a
R
resolutory condition, it is already effective but subject only to a certain contingency, the happening or
fulfillment of which will set aside the donation.
Ex: Army dude donates land, but revokes it if he lives during the mission.
t. Discuss Article 732.
rt. 732. Donations which are to take effectinter vivos shall be governed by the general provisions
A
oncontracts and obligationsin all that is not determinedin this Title.
onationswhich take effect during the lifetime of the donorshall be governed by the
D
provisions ofTITLE III which deal on donations.
he law onObligations and Contracts under Book III of the civil code will only applysuppletorily,
T
meaning, if the general provisions on donations are found insufficient.
OWEVER, if the donation is totally or purelyONEROUS, law on contracts applies.
H
DonationsINTER VIVOSar e governed byTITLE 3, BOOK 3 of the Civil Code.Additionally by the
General Provs on Obligations and contracts. Object and cause are 2 separate elements of a donation
and the illegality of either element gives rise to the application of equal fault (pari delicto)
u. Discussonerous donationand its kinds. (Article733)
rt. 733. Donations with anonerous cause shallbe governed by therules on contractsand
A
remuneratory donationsby the provisions of the present Title as regardsthat portion which
exceeds the value of the burden imposed.
NEROUSDonation - adonation given for which the donor received a valuable
O
considerationwhich is theequivalent of the property so donated.
x: a)When a burden is imposed on the doneeand theburdenis theequivalentof the value
E
of the thing donated
b) When a donation ismade in settlement or payment of a demandable debt.
Kinds ofONEROUSdonations:
1) TOTALLYonerous - When the burden isequalto orgreaterthanthe value of the property
donated.
2) PARTIALLYonerous -When the burdenislesserthan the value of the donation. Under this
class will fall theMODAL donations where a presentation is imposed upon the donee.
OTALLYonerous=Rules on Contracts
T
PARTIALLYonerous=Portion which exceeds value of burden imposed shallfollowTitle IIIon
simple donations, other portion which is equal to burden governed by Rules on contracts.
emuneratory donations=Covered by Art 726.
R
*A remuneratory donationdoes not in itself imply the existence of a burden.)
Remuneratory donationerror =modal donations.
OnerousVs.Remuneratory
Difference isTIMING
nerous- Services of the doneehad not yetbeen performed.
O
Remuneratory- Services of doneehas beenperformed.
OTALLY ONEROUS DONATIONS=NEED NOT BE IN PUBLIC INSTRUMENTEVEN IF
T
PROPERTY ISIMMOVABLE.
Valid even if not compliant to Art 749, requiring formalities for donations of real property.
v. When is themoment of perfectionof a donation?(Art. 734).
rt. 734.The donation isperfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptanceby
A
the donee.
From the moment the donorHAS KNOWNthat the doneehasACCEPTEDthe donation.
ust bedone during the lifetime of both donor and donee.Donations are personalbetween
M
the two.
No acceptance = NULL and VOID = Deed of donation, signature of both. = Acceptance
Before learning of acceptance,owner is free to alienate and do what he pleases.
w. Discuss thequalificationsof adonor? (Article735).
rt. 735.All persons who may contract and dispose of their property may make a
A
donation.
Must have2 essential capacities:
) Capacity to enter into contracts( Legal Age )
1
2) Capacity to dispose of his property by acts inter vivos( Full Civil Capacity )
ersons refer to natural or artificial persons with LEGAL PERSONALITY.
P
Artificial persons must be authorized by their articles to donate.
Corporation which made a voidable donation for being ultra vires (lack of legal capacity)
*
may ratify the same, BUT cannot dispute donation’s validity after ratification.
x. Discuss Article 736.
Art. 736.Guardians and trusteescannot donatethe property entrusted to them.
y. Why are guardians and trustees prohibited from donating trust property?
heydo not own the properties. A donormust have the capacity to dispose of the property.One who isnot
T
the owner of a property CANNOT donate it. Any such donation is VOID.
trustee who hasrepudiated the trust may become the ownerof said property byPRESCRIPTION.
A
Thereafter,upon becoming owner he may now donate.
REASON:To protect trust beneficiaries from the unfaithfulness and abuses of guardians and trustees.
xception: If the donation isCLEARLYin theBEST INTERESTof the beneficiaries, itwould be contrary to
E
law that it cannot be done. But,only PURE donations (No conditions/considerations) is allowed.
z. When does implied trust arise in a donation?
here is anIMPLIED TRUSTwhen a donation is made to a person but itap
T pears that although the legal
estate is transmitted to the donee, he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a
part thereof. (Real owner becomes beneficiary, trustee lang ang fake owner) (CASE SA 5v1)
aa. When is adetermining moment for a donor’s capacity?(Article 737)
Art. 737. The donor's capacity shall bedeterminedas of the time of the making of the donation.
By the time the donation is perfected: Meaning = Donor receives acceptance of donee.
ONOR’s capacity must be PRESENT at the time of Perfection of donation. What is important is the
D
Donor’s capacity to give consent at the time of donation.
hould be read as: Donor’s capacity shall be determined as of the time of the perfection of the
S
donation.
bb.Whomayacceptdonations? (Article 738)
Art. 738. All thosewho are not specially disqualified bylaw therefor mayaccept donations.
hose who are not specifically disqualified by law. This does not refer to those whose
T
capacity to act are restricted but by: [ THOSE art 739 and FamCode 87
Ex:a.)Those disqualified under Art.739:
(1) Those madebetween persons who were guilty ofadultery or concubinageat the time
of the donation;
(2) Those madebetween persons found guilty of the samecriminal offense, in
consideration thereof;
(3) Those made to apublic officer or his wife, descendantsand ascendants, by reason of
his office.
.)Legal spouses and common-law spouses, who areprohibited to make donations
b
except moderate gifts during family rejoicing.
onations ofreal property to analien religious orgisvoid.Until 60% of its capital stock is
D
owned by Filipino citizens. If it is non-stock, it cannot bea doneeof real propertyUNLESS, the
controlling majority is Filipino.
oman Catholic Church MAYaccept donations as it is not consideredALIEN.
R
Also other churches owned and managed by Filipinos.
cc. Memorize and explain thevoid donationsunderArticle 739.
Art. 739. Thefollowing donations shall be void:
( 1) Those made between persons whowere guilty of adultery or concubinageat the time of the
donation;
(2) Those made between persons foundguilty of the same criminal offense, in consideration
thereof;
(3) Those made to apublic officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants,by reason of his
office.
I n the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought by the
spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of the donor and donee may be proved by
preponderance of evidence in the same action.
Void Donations due toIMMORAL CONSIDERATION
hese donations above arevoid from the beginning.(Ab initio)
T
Remedy = ACTION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF DONATION.
Annulment =applies only when the donation is only voidable
xtended to SUCCESSION and INSURANCE -Shallapplytotestamentaryprovisions.THey
E
cannotbenamedbeneficiaryofalifeinsurancepolicybythepersonwhocannotmakeanydonation
to him, according to said article.
Pure donation, succession, and insurance are based on liberality.
Adultery and Concubinage
Adultery - Woman
- P risoncorreccionalinmediumandmaximumperiod
- If abandoned, 1 next lower penalty
Concubinage - Men
- K eeps a mistress
- Prisoncorreccionalinminimumandmediumperiods.
- Concubine sent to destierro.
Same Criminal Offense
andBrobbery,BcannotdonateLOOTtoAbecauseitisinconsiderationoftheoffensewhich
A
they are convicted.
Live in partners or common-law-spouses without impediments.
- Can donate only moderate gifts but not properties.
Donation to Public officer, wife etc.
- S
uch donations are void and could be revoked by heirs and creditors of donor.
Wife/Spouse may apply.
dd. 740 Discuss Article 740.
Art. 740.Incapacity to succeed by willshall be applicableto donationsinter vivos.
pplication of Rules in Succession.
A
There are persons who are declaredINCAPACITATED TO SUCCEED BY WILL.
.) Those who areabsolutely disqualified-Yung (3)-Articles 1028,Disinherited
a
(919,920,921)
rt. 1028.The prohibitions mentioned inarticle 739, concerning donations inter vivos shall apply to
A
testamentary provisions.
rt. 919. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and
A
descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate:
( 1) When a child or descendant has been foundguiltyof anattempt againstthe life of the
testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
(2) When a child or descendant hasaccusedthetestatorof a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
(3) When a child or descendant has beenconvictedofadulteryor concubinage with the spouse of
the testator;
(4) When a child or descendant byfraud,violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the
testator tomakeawillor to change one already made;
(5) Arefusalwithout justifiable cause tosupporttheparentor ascendant who disinherits such
child or descendant;
(6)Maltreatmentof the testator by word or deed, by the child or descendant;
(7) When a child or descendant leads adishonorableordisgracefullife;
(8)Convictionof acrimewhich carries with it the penalty ofcivil interdiction.(756, 853, 674a)
rt. 920. The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of parents or
A
ascendants,whether legitimate or illegitimate:
( 1) When the parents haveabandonedtheir children or induced their daughters to live a corrupt or
immoral life, or attempted against their virtue;
(2) When the parent or ascendant has beenconvictedof anattemptagainst the life of the
testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
( 3) When the parent or ascendant hasaccusedthe testator of acrimefor which the law prescribes
imprisonmentforsix yearsor more, if the accusation has been found to be false;
(4) When the parent or ascendant has beenconvictedofadulteryor concubinage with the spouse
of the testator;
(5) When the parent or ascendant byfraud,violence, intimidation, or undue influence causes the
testator to make a will or to change one already made;
(6) The loss ofparental authorityfor causes specified in this Code;
(7) Therefusaltosupportthe children or descendants without justifiable cause;
(8) Anattemptby one of the parentsagainst the lifeof the other, unless there has been a
reconciliationbetween them.(756, 854, 674a)
Art. 921.The following shall be sufficient causes fordisinheriting a spouse:
( 1) When the spouse has beenconvictedof anattemptagainst the life of the testator, his or her
descendants, or ascendants;
(2) When the spouse hasaccusedthetestatorof a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonmentofsixyears or more, and the accusation has been found to be false;
(3) When thespousebyfraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence cause the testator to
make a will or to change one already made;
(4) When thespousehas givencauseforlegal separation;
(5) When thespousehasgiven groundsfor thelossofparentalauthority;
(6)Unjustifiable refusaltosupportthechildrenor the other spouse.
b.) Those who are relatively qualified:
Those enumerated in Art. 1027, except paragraph 4.
Art. 1027:
The following areincapable of succeeding:
( 1) Thepriestwho heard the confession of the testator during his last illness, or the minister of the
gospel who extended spiritual aid to him during the same period;
(2) Therelativesof suchpriestor minister of the gospel within the fourth degree, the church,
order, chapter, community, organization, or institution to which such priest or minister may belong;
(3) Aguardianwith respect to testamentary dispositionsgiven by a ward in his favor before
the final accounts of the guardianship have been approved, even if thetestator should die
after the approval thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by the ward in favor of the guardian
when the latter is his ascendant, descendant, brother, sister, or spouse, shall be valid;
(4)xxxAttesting Witnesses not required
(5) Anyphysician,surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist who took care of the testator during
hislast illness;
(6)Individuals, associations and corporationsnot permitted by law to inherit
Art. 1032:
The following are incapable of succeeding by reason ofunworthiness:
( 1)Parentswho haveabandonedtheir children or induced their daughters to lead a corrupt or
immoral life, or attempted against their virtue;
(2)Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator, his or her
spouse, descendants, or ascendants;
(3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crimefor which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has been found groundless;
(4) Any heir offull age who, having knowledge of the violent death of the testator, should fail
toreport it toan officer of the law within a month, unless the authorities have already taken
action; this prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein, according to law, there is no obligation to
make an accusation;
(5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(6) Any person who byfraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence should cause the
testator to make a will or to change one already made;
(7) Any person who by thesame means prevents another from making a will, orfrom
revoking one already made, or who supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will;
(8) Any person whofalsifies or forges asupposed will of the decedent.
he causes of unworthinessshall be without effectif the testator HAD KNOWLEDGEthereof at
T
the time he made the will or if having known of them subsequently,he should CONDONE (be
okay with them) in writing.
onation to a disqualifiedperson willonly be validIF the donor KNEW of the act of
D
unworthiness.If there ispardonandokay,donationisvalid.
If an act of unworthiness committedafter donation,NO BAWI, needs juridical intervention.
CAPACITY OF DONEE IS DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF THE PERFECTION OF DONATION.
e.741 May minors and otherswho are incapacitated to enter into a contract become donees?
E
Who will accept on their behalf? (Article 741)
rt. 741. Minors and others who cannot enter into a contractmay become donees but acceptance
A
shall be done through their parents or legal representatives.
QUALIFIED,as longas it will be through their parentsor LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES / Guardians
thers = Incapacitated by reason of the restriction in their capacity to act (Insane, imbecile and
O
deaf-mutes)DOES NOT REFER TO 739 (Adulterers, Crimes,Officials) and 87 Fam Code (Spouses)
ff. Discuss Article 742.
rt. 742. Donations made to conceived and unborn childrenmay be accepted by those persons
A
who would legally represent them if they were already born.
I T ISESSENTIALthat theconceived and unborn child at the time of the donation,MUST BE
BORN ALIVE and GAINED PERSONALITY in accord with Art 41
“For Civil purposes,a fetus is born if it is ALIVE at the time of delivery. IfPremature(less 7
mos) ITMUST be alive for 24 hrs to be considered born.
DONATIONMUST BE FAVORABLE TO CHILD.If onerous prejudicial to child’s interest,invalid.
gg. 743 Who are theincapacitated personsreferred to in Article 743?
rt. 743. Donationsmade toincapacitated personsshall bevoid, though simulated under the
A
guise of another contract or through a person who is interposed.
Those incapacitated inArt 739and Spouses in FamCode Art 87.
.
1 dulterers/Concubiners
A
2. Criminals
3. Public Officials
4. SPOUSES
hh. Why are thetransferstoincapacitatedpersonsvoidunder Article 743?
ircumvents the law. And makes steps to not follow the restrictions of the law.
C
VOID
ii. 744 When isdouble donationpresent? (Article 744)
rt. 744.Donations of the same thing to two or more different doneesshall be governed by
A
the provisions concerning thesaleof thesame thingtotwoor more different persons.
hen the same thing has been donated to two or more persons, the rule on double sale in Art 1544
W
shall apply.
kk. What are the rules to be followed in case of double donation?
Moveable:
1stto have first taken possessioningood faith.
Real Property:
. F
1 irstrecordedin
Registry Of Property.
2. Firstpossessioningood faith
3. PresentstheOldesttitle, inGoodFaith
ll. 745 What is theeffect of a donee’s failure to accept the donation?(Article 745)
rt. 745. The doneemust acceptthe donationpersonally,orthrough an authorized person with a
A
special power for the purpose, or with a general andsufficient power; otherwise, the donation shall
be void.
I f there isno acceptance of a donation, the donationis void.
If the authority of the Agent is not sufficient, such as when a SPA is not notarized, the acceptance of
donation for immovable property shall be void.
mm. What are themodes of acceptance?
ay be madepersonallyby the donee himself//orthrough anauthorizedrepresentativearmed with a
M
special power or sufficient general power for that purpose.
oo. 746 When must acceptance be made? (Article 746)
Art. 746. Acceptance must bemadeduring the lifetimeof thedonor and of the donee.
onation isnot perfected unless it has been accepted. This must be doneduring the lifetimeof
D
BOTH the donor and donee,because it isPERSONALbetween them.NO ACCEPTANCE = NO
DONATION.
pp. 747 What is the requirement for acceptance of donations by representatives? (Article 747)
rt. 747. Persons who accept donations in representation of others who may not do so by
A
themselves,shall be obliged to make thenotificationandnotationof which Article 749 speaks.
May accept through their parents or legal guardians
epresentatives arerequired to notify the donor of the acceptancemade in an authentic
R
form which shall be noted in the deed of donationand in the deed of acceptance.
Otherwise, the donation shall not be effective for NOT HAVING BEEN PERFECTED.
Donations to Gov become gov funds. Public officer has liability in gathering donations.
rr. 748 What are theformalitiesrequired in the donation of amovableproperty? (Article 748)
Art. 748. The donation of a movable may be madeorallyor inwriting.
noraldonationrequires the simultaneous deliveryof the thing or of the document
A
representing the right donated.
I fthevalueofthepersonalpropertydonatedexceedsfivethousandpesos,thedonationandthe
acceptance shall be made in writing,otherwise, thedonation shall bevoid.
a) Property worthEqual or Less than 5,000 Php.
- There must be SIMULTANEOUS delivery of the thing or documentrepresentingthe
right donated to the donee.
- Oral Donation is allowed
- No prohibition on less than 5k and in writing
b) Property worthMORE than 5,000.
- The donation must be in writing, althoughneed NOTin public instrument.
- If there is simultaneous delivery, not done in writing = VOID.
CCEPTANCE: If the personal property is worth more than 5,000 BOTH the donation andthe
A
acceptanceshould be inWRITING. Else, the donationshall be VOID.
Inoral donation, the delivery to the donee is theequivalentofacceptance.
If thedonationwas madein writing, but the acceptancewas not,VOID.
s. 749 What are theformalitiesrequired in the donation of animmovable property?(Article
s
749)
rt. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public
A
document,specifyingthereinthepropertydonatedandthevalueofthechargeswhichthe
donee must satisfy.
heacceptancemaybemadeinthesamedeedofdonationorinaseparatepublicdocument,butit
T
shall not take effectunlessit isdone during thelifetimeof the donor.
I ftheacceptanceismadeinaseparateinstrument,thedonorshallbenotifiedthereofinan
authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.
ust be in a public instrument meaning, itmustbedulynotarized.Instrumentmustspecify
M
or describe clearly the property being donated andthevalueofthechargeswhichmust
be satisfied by the donee.Unless in a public instrument, donation will be null and void.
A donation of real estate in marriage is void unless made in a public instrument.
In order to bind third persons, donation MUST be registered in the Registry of Property.
BUT: IF THIRD PARTY IS AWARE OF SUCH DONATION, IT IS AS GOOD AS REGISTERED.
xceptions:Incasesofonerousdonations,theyneednotbeinpublicinstrumentbecausethey
E
are governed by the rules of contracts.
Acceptance of Donations of Immovable Property Formalities:
. T
1 heacceptance must be done during the lifetime of the donor,otherwise VOID.
2. The acceptance may be made in the same instrument ordeedofdonationorinaseparate
instrument. However, if it is done in a separate instrument, there are conditions such as:
a. The donor must be notified of the acceptance in an authentic form
b. Thisstep(notification)mustbenotedinthedeedofdonationaswellasinthedeedof
acceptance.
Once there is acceptance there is transfer of title over property to the donee:Exception:
- O ncethedonationisaccepted,itisirrevocableandthedoneebecomestheabsoluteownerof
thepropertyEXCEPTonaccountofofficiousness,failurebythedoneetocomplywiththe
charge imposed in the donation, oringratitude.
- Acceptancemust be made in the lifetime of BOTH
- Must be made in the same deed or in a separate public document, and THE DONEE’S
ACCEPTANCE MUST COME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DONOR.
- If the deed of donation has to be recorded with theRegistryofProperty,theinstrumentof
acceptance must also be recorded, otherwise if there is no recording, VOID.
ss.1. CASE Sumipat v. Banga.
v1 5 ILLEGITIMATE CHILD UNG BABAE LYDIRA DI PINAALAM CONSENT SA PAG SIGN SA SINGLE
5
NANAY
tt. When is adocument considered to be in a public instrument?
public instrument is one which is acknowledged before a notary public or any official authorized to
A
administer oath, by the person who executed the same.
ublic instrument specifying therein the property donated, value of the charges which the donee must
P
satisfy, the acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document.
Should be done during the lifetime of the donor else void.
If theacceptance 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.
uu. What is the effect of ratification of donation by the heirs of the donor on the donation?
If the donor died before the acceptance had reached him, the donation is not perfected. It does not obligate
the donor’s heirs to deliver the thing supposedly donated.
OWEVER, if the heirs of the donorRATIFIED the donation and the donee accepted, the donation
H
subsists, although in reality, it is a new and valid one. Although the ratification is binding upon the heirs
who ratified the donation, the ratificationCANNOT have any retroactive effect to the prejudice of the
creditors of the deceased donor.
OID DONATION MAY STILL BE USED TO PROVE THE EXCLUSIVE AND ADVERSE CHARACTER OF
V
THE DONEE’S POSSESSION
BASIS FOR POSSESSION OF PRESCRIPTION “EH BINIGAY SAKEN TO NG ASAWA /KUMPARE KO EH”
uu.1. Discuss Shopper’s Paradise Realty and Dev’t. Corp. v. Roque.
[ CASES]
1. Del Rosario v. Ferrer, G.R. No. 187056, 20 September 2010.
G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010
JARABINI G. DEL ROSARIO, Petitioner,
1
vs.
ASUNCION G. FERRER, substituted by her heirs, VICENTE, PILAR, ANGELITO, FELIXBERTO, JR., all
surnamed G. FERRER, and MIGUELA FERRER ALTEZA,Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
ABAD,J.:
hiscasepertainstoagift,otherwisedenominatedasadonationmortiscausa,whichinrealityisa
T
donationintervivosmadeeffectiveuponitsexecutionbythedonorsandacceptancethereofby
thedonees,andimmediatelytransmittingownershipofthedonatedpropertytothelatter,thus
precluding a subsequent assignment thereof by one of the donors.
The Facts and the Case
n August 27, 1968 the spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales executed a document
O
entitled"DonationMortisCausa"1 infavoroftheirtwochildren,AsuncionandEmiliano,andtheir
granddaughter, Jarabini (daughter of their predeceased son, Zoilo) covering the spouses’
126-square meter lot and the house on it in Pandacan, Manila2 in equal shares. The deed of
donation reads:
It is our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall be irrevocable and shall be respected by the
surviving spouse.
It is our will that Jarabini Gonzales-del RosarioandEmilianoGonzaleswillcontinuetooccupythe
portions now occupied by them.
It is further our will that this DONATION MORTIS CAUSA shall not in any way affect any other
distributionofotherpropertiesbelongingtoanyofusdonorswhethertestateorintestateandwhere
ever situated.
It is our further will that any one surviving spouse reserves the right, ownership, possession an
d
administrationofthispropertyhereindonatedandacceptedandthisDispositionandDonationshall
be operative andeffective upon the death of the DONORS.3
lthoughdenominatedasadonationmortiscausa,whichinlawistheequivalentofawill,thedeed
A
hadnoattestationclauseandwaswitnessedbyonlytwopersons.Thenameddonees,however,
signified their acceptance of the donationon the face of the document.
uadalupe,thedonorwife,diedinSeptember1968.AfewmonthslateroronDecember19,1968,
G
Leopoldo, the donor husband, executed a deed of assignment of his rights and interests in
subject property to their daughter Asuncion.Leopoldo died in June 1972.
In 1998 Jarabini filed a "petition fortheprobateoftheAugust27,1968deedofdonationmortis
causa"beforetheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofManilainSp.Proc.98-90589.4 Asuncionopposed
the petition, invoking his father Leopoldo’s assignment of his rights and interests in the
property to her.
ftertrial,theRTCrenderedadecisiondatedJune20,2003,5 findingthatthedonationwasin
A
factonemadeintervivos,thedonors’intentionbeingtotransfertitleoverthepropertytothe
donees during the donors’ lifetime, given its irrevocability. Consequently, said the RTC,
Leopoldo’s subsequentassignmentofhisrightsandinterestinthepropertywasvoidsince
hehadnothingtoassign.TheRTCthusdirectedtheregistrationofthepropertyinthename
of the donees in equal shares.6
nAsuncion’sappealtotheCourt ofAppeals(CA),thelatterrenderedadecisiononDecember23,
O
2008,7 reversingthatoftheRTC.TheCAheldthatJarabinicannot,throughherpetitionforthe
probate of the deed of donation mortis causa, collaterally attack Leopoldo’s deed of
assignment in Asuncion’s favor. The CA further held that, since no proceeding exists for the
allowance of what Jarabini claimed was actually a donation inter vivos, theRTCerredindeciding
the case the way it did. Finally, the CAheldthatthedonation,beingonegivenmortiscausa,
did not comply with the requirements of a notarial will,8 rendering the samevoid.Following
the CA’s denial of Jarabini’s motion for reconsideration,9 she filed the present petition with this
Court.
IssuePresented
he key issue inthiscaseiswhetherornotthespousesLeopoldoandGuadalupe’sdonation
T
toAsuncion,Emiliano,andJarabiniwasadonationmortiscausa,asitwasdenominated,or
in fact a donation inter vivos.
The Court’sRuling
hat the document in question in this case was captioned "Donation Mortis Causa" is not
T
controlling. ThisCourthasheldthat,ifadonationbyitstermsisintervivos,thischaracteris
not altered by the fact that the donor styles itmortiscausa.1 0
In Austria-Magat v. Court of Appeals,11 the Court held that "irrevocability" is a quality absolutely
incompatible with the idea of conveyances mortis causa, where "revocability" is precisely the
essence of the act.A donation mortis causa has thefollowing characteristics:
. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or,
1
what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or
naked) and control of the property while alive;
.Thatbeforehisdeath,thetransfershouldberevocablebythetransferoratwill,adnutum;
2
butrevocabilitymaybeprovidedforindirectlybymeansofareservedpowerinthedonorto
dispose of the properties conveyed; and
. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.12
3
(Underscoring supplied)
he Court thus said in Austria-Magat that the express "irrevocability" of the donation is the
T
"d istinctivestandardthatidentifiesthedocumentasadonationintervivos."Here,thedonors
plainlysaidthatitis"ourwillthatthisDonationMortisCausashallbeirrevocableandshallbe
respected by the surviving spouse." The intent to make the donation irrevocable becomes
even clearer by the proviso that a surviving donor shall respect the irrevocability of the
donation. Consequently, the donation was in reality a donation inter vivos.
hedonorsinthiscaseofcoursereservedthe"right,ownership,possession,andadministrationof
T
the property" and madethedonationoperativeupontheirdeath.ButthisCourthasconsistently
held that such reservation (r eddendum) in the context of an irrevocable donation simply
meansthatthedonorspartedwiththeirnakedtitle,maintainingonlybeneficialownershipof
the donated property while they lived.13
otably, the three donees signed their acceptance of the donation, which acceptance the deed
N
required.14 This Court has held that an acceptance clause indicates that the donation is inter
vivos, since acceptance is a requirement only for such kindofdonations.Donationsmortis
causa, being in the form of a will, need not be accepted by the donee during the donor’s
lifetime.15
(ACCEPTANCE CLAUSE = INTER VIVOS // MORTIS CAUSE NEED NOT BE ACCEPTED BY DONEE DURING THE
DONOR’s LIFETIME
inally, as Justice J. B. L. ReyessaidinPuigv.Peñaflorida,1 6 incaseofdoubt,theconveyance
F
shouldbedeemedadonationintervivosratherthanmortiscausa,inordertoavoiduncertainty
as to the ownership of the property subject of the deed.
ince the donation in this casewasonemadeintervivos,itwasimmediatelyoperativeand
S
final. The reason is that such kind of donation is deemed perfected from the moment the donor
learned of the donee’s acceptance of the donation. The acceptance makes the donee the
absolute owner of the property donated.17
iven that the donation in this case was irrevocable or one given inter vivos, Leopoldo’s
G
subsequent assignment of his rights and interests in the property to Asuncion should be
regardedasvoidfor,bythen,hehadnomorerightstoassign.Hecouldnotgivewhatheno
longer had.Nemo dat quod non habet.1 8
he trial court cannot be faulted for passing upon, in a petition for probate of what was initially
T
supposedtobeadonationmortiscausa,thevalidityofthedocumentasadonationintervivosand
the nullity of one of the donor’s subsequent assignment of his rights andinterestsintheproperty.
The Court has held before that the rule on probate is not inflexible and absolute.19 Moreover, in
opposing the petition for probate and in putting the validity of the deed of assignment squarelyin
issue, Asuncion or those who substituted her may not now claim that the trial court improperly
allowed a collateral attack on such assignment.
HEREFORE, the CourtGRANTSthe petition,SETS ASIDEthe assailed December 23, 2008
W
Decision and March 6, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 80549, and
REINSTATES in toto the June 20, 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
19, in Sp. Proc. 98-90589.
SO ORDERED.
asically:Spouses assigned a will named MC, but actuallyIV, it was a irrevocable, clear sign na
B
Inter vivos nga, and nakalagay don na a parent surviving can have full control of it. Now yung
leopoldo na tatay, ni reassign bago siya mamatay para kay asuncion, but yung granddaughter nag
rereklamo kasi gusto na nya kunin, but sabi ni asuncion sakanya, The RTC ruled na hindi pwede
ibigay ni asuncion ang hindi na kanya kasi nga IV nga yun, meaning immediate na napasa sa mga
anak ang rights, wala na siyang ibibigay, Ni reverse naman ng CA saying hindi naka form ang MC
na hindi naman talaga MC, void daw to, inappeal naman ito sa SC, SC ruled that tama ang RTC
because the title of the donation is not controlling / immaterial to the content of the provisions of
donation. REINSTATES the RTC ruling, ang ascunsions din naman nag oppose sa probate,
therefore hindi colaterally inataka ng court ang topics na yun, sila ang nag open up. Dahil
irrevocable daw ang IV, automatic na pala na nagawa ang will na yun upon execution.
2. Sumipat v. Banga, G.R. No. 155810, 13 August 2004.
G.R. No. 155810 August 13, 2004
LYDIA SUMIPAT, LAURITO SUMIPAT, ALEJANDRO SUMIPAT, ALICIA SUMIPAT, and LIRAFE
2
SUMIPAT,petitioners,(5 DAUGHTERS)
vs.
BRIGIDO BANGA, HERMINIGILDO TABOTABO, VIVIANO TABOTABO, BERNARDITA ANIÑON, and
LEONIDA TABOTABO,respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA,J.:
his is a PetitionforReviewonCertiorari1 oftheDecision2 oftheCourtofAppealswhichreversed
T
and set aside the decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)andpartiallyannulledtheDeedof
Absolute Transfer and/or Quitclaim(the deed) subjectof this case.
We quote the appellate court’s findings of fact:
he spouses Placida Tabo-tabo and Lauro Sumipat, who contracted marriage on July 20,1939,
T
acquiredthreeparcelsoflandtwoofwhichwerecoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.P-17842
and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-15826.
The couple waschildless.
auro Sumipat, however, sired five illegitimate children out of an extra-marital affair withPedra
L
Dacola, namely: herein defendants-appellees Lydia, Laurito, Alicia, Alejandro and Lirafe, all
surnamed Sumipat.
n January 5, 1983, Lauro Sumipat executed a document denominated "DEED OF ABSOLUTE
O
TRANSFER AND/OR QUIT-CLAIM OVER REAL PROPERTIES" (theassaileddocument)infavor
of defendants-appellees covering the three parcels of land (the properties). On the document
appears the signature of his wife Placida which indicates that she gave her marital consent thereto.
ItappearsthatonJanuary5,1983whentheassaileddocumentwasexecuted,LauroSumipatwas
already very sick and bedridden; that upon defendant-appellee Lydia’s request, their neighbor
Benjamin Rivera lifted the body of Lauro Sumipat whereupon Lydia guided his (Lauro Sumipat’s)
handinaffixinghissignatureontheassaileddocumentwhichshehadbrought;thatLydiathereafter
leftbutlaterreturnedonthesamedayandrequestedLauro’sunletteredwifePlacidatosignonthe
assailed document, as she did inhaste,evenwithoutthelattergettingaresponsiveanswertoher
query on what it was all about. (SIGNED BY BOTH CHECK / )
fter Lauro Sumipat’s death on January 30, 1984, his wife Placida, hereinafter referred to as
A
plaintiff-appellant, and defendants-appellees jointly administered the properties 50% of the
produce of which went to plaintiff-appellant.
s plaintiff-appellant’s share in theproduceofthepropertiesdwindleduntilshenolongerreceived
A
any and learningthatthetitlestothepropertiesinquestionwerealreadytransferred/madeinfavor
of the defendants-appellees, she filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of titles, contracts,
partition, recovery of ownership now the subject of the present appeal.
efendant-appellee Lydia disclaims participation in the execution of the assailed document, she
D
claimingtohaveacquiredknowledgeofitsexistenceonlyonJanuary10,1983orfivedaysafterits
execution when Lauro Sumipat gave the same to her.
ranch 6 of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City decided the case in favor of
B
defendants-appellees,itholdingthatbyvirtueoftheassaileddocumentthedueexecutionofwhich
was not contested by plaintiff-appellant, the properties were absolutely transferred to
defendants-appellees.4
he trial court found that the subject properties are conjugal, having been acquired during the
T
marriage of Lauro Sumipat and Placida Tabotabo (Placida). However, because Placida failed to
question the genuineness and due execution of the deed and even admitted having affixed her
signaturethereon,thetrialcourtdeclaredthattheentiretyofthesubjectproperties,andnotjust
Lauro Sumipat’s conjugal share, were validly transferred to the defendants, the petitioners
herein.5
n appeal,6 the appellate court held that since Placida was unlettered,7 the appellees, the
O
petitionersherein,asthepartiesinterestedinenforcingthedeed,havetheburdenofprovingthat
the terms thereof were fully explained to her.8Thisthey failed to do.
nder the Civil Code, a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence, intimidation,
U
undueinfluenceorfraudisvoidable.9 Inorderthatmistakemayinvalidateconsent,itshouldreferto
the substance of the thing which is the object of the contract, or to those conditions which have
principally moved one or both parties to enter into the contract.10
heappellatecourtfoundthatPlacidadidnotunderstandthefullimportofthedeedbecause
T
the terms thereof were not explainedtohereitherbythepetitionersorbythenotarypublic
before whom the deed was acknowledged. According to the appellate court, Judge Pacifico
Garcia(JudgeGarcia),beforewhomthedeedwasacknowledged,didnotidentifyPlacidaashaving
appeared before him on January 5, 1983 to acknowledgethedeed.Thejuratindicatesthatitwas
only Lauro Sumipat whoappearedbeforeJudgeGarciaandtowhomheexplainedthecontentsof
thedeed.Further,theappellatecourtnotedthatJudgeGarciahimselfwasundertheimpressionthat
the deed conveyed the exclusive properties of Lauro Sumipat. Hence, he could not have
explainedtoPlacidathatthedeedactuallytransferredtheconjugalpropertiesofLauroSumipat
and Placida.11
he Court of Appeals, therefore, annulled the deed insofar as it covers Placida’s conjugal
T
share in the subject properties becausethelatter’sconsenttheretowasvitiatedbymistake
when she affixed her signature on the document.
hepetitionersfiledaMotionforReconsiderationonthegroundsofestoppel,absenceoffraud
T
andprescription.TheappellatecourtdeniedtheMotionforReconsiderationinitsResolution12dated
October 16, 2002 ruling that the grounds relied upon have been addressed in its Decision dated
April11,2002.Anentthegroundofprescription,theappellatecourtheldthatsincetheproperties
wereacquiredthroughfraudormistake,thepetitionersareconsideredtrusteesofanimplied
trust for the benefit of Placida. Citing jurisprudence,13 the Court of Appeals ruled that actions
based on implied or constructive trustprescribe10yearsfromtheissuanceofaTorrensTitleover
theproperty.Sincetwo(2)ofthesubjectpropertieswereissuedTransferCertificatesofTitle(TCT)
NumberedT-4003714 andT-4003815 underthepetitioners’namesonAugust18,1987,theComplaint
for declaration of nullity of titles, partition, recovery of ownership and possession, reconveyance,
accounting and damages, which was filed on March 3, 1993, was filedwellwithintheprescriptive
period.
ThepetitionersarenowbeforethisCourtprincipallyclaimingthatPlacidafreelyconsentedtothe
xecution of the deed and that they did not commit fraudulent acts in connection with its
e
execution.TheyalsoreiteratetheirargumentthattheCourtofAppealsshouldhavedismissedthe
caseonthegroundofprescription.Itistheircontentionthatthepresentactionbeingonetoannula
contractonthegroundoffraud,itshouldhavebeenfiledwithinfour(4)yearsfromthediscoveryof
fraudor registration of the instrument with the Registryof Deeds.
he respondents filed their Comment16 dated February 7,2003,essentiallyechoingthefindingsof
T
the Court of Appeals on the matter of Placida’s consent. According to them, Placida was
deceived and misled into affixinghersignatureonthedeed.TheyfurtherclaimthatPlacida
did not actually appear before the notary public to acknowledge the instrument.
In their Reply17 dated April 29, 2003, the petitioners insist that Placida was not illiterate and that
LauroSumipatvalidlytransferredthetitlesoverthepropertiesinquestiontothem.Theyalsoargue
that if Placida did not understand the import of the deed, she could have questioned Lauro
Sumipatabout it since the deed was executed a yearbefore the latter died.
he trial court and the Court ofAppealsareinagreementthatthesubjectpropertiesareconjugal,
T
havingbeenacquiredduringthemarriageofLauroSumipatandPlacida.Theycameout,however,
withdisparatedenouements.Whilethetrialcourtupheldthevalidityofthedeedasaninstrumentof
transfer of all the litigated parcels of land in their entirety on the ground that Placida failed to
questionitsauthenticityanddueexecution,theappellatecourtstruckthedeeddowninsofarasthe
conjugal share of Placida is concerned based on its finding that her consent was vitiated by
mistake.
t bottom, the crux of the controversy is whether the questioned deed by its terms or under the
A
surrounding circumstances has validly transferred title to the disputed properties to the petitioners.
perusalofthedeedrevealsthatitisactuallyagratuitousdispositionofproperty—adonation
A
—althoughLauroSumipatimposeduponthepetitionerstheconditionthatheandhiswife,Placida,
shall be entitled to one-half (1/2) of all the fruits or produce of the parcels of land for their
subsistence and support.The preliminary clauses ofthe deed read:
hat conscious of my advanced age and failing health, I feel that I am not capable anymore of
T
attending to and maintaining and keeping in continuous cultivation my above described properties;
hat my children are all desirous of taking over the task of maintaining my properties and have
T
demonstrated since childhood the needed industry andhardworkastheyhaveinfactestablished
possession over my real properties and introduced more improvements overmylands,thefruitof
which through their concerted efforts and labors, I myself and my family have enjoyed;
hatitwouldbetothebestinterestofmyabovementionedchildrenthattheownershipover
T
my above described properties be transferred in their names, thereby encouraging them
more in developing the lands to its fullest productivity.18
he deed covers three (3) parcels of land.19 Being a donation of immovable property, the
T
requirementsforvaliditysetforthinArticle749oftheCivilCodeshouldhavebeenfollowed,
viz:
rt. 749. In order that the donation of the immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public
A
document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee
must satisfy.
heacceptancemaybemadeinthesamedeedofdonationorinaseparatepublicdocument,butit
T
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.
itle to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee by virtue of a deed of
T
donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and the donor duly notified
thereof. The acceptance may be made in theverysameinstrumentofdonation.Iftheacceptance
does not appear in the same document, it must be made in another. Wherethedeedofdonation
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 not noted in the deed of donation and in the
separate acceptance, the donation isnull and void.2 0
Inthiscase,thedonees’acceptanceofthedonationisnotmanifestedeitherinthedeeditselforina
separate document.Hence, the deed as an instrumentof donation is patently void.
ealsonotetheabsenceofanyproofoffilingofthenecessaryreturn,paymentofdonor’staxeson
W
thetransfer,orexemptionfrompaymentthereof.UndertheNationalInternalRevenueCodeof1977,
thetaxcodeinforceatthetimeoftheexecutionofthedeed,anindividualwhomakesanytransfer
by gift shall make areturnandfilethesamewithin30daysafterthedatethegiftismadewiththe
Revenue District Officer, Collection Agent or dulyauthorizedTreasurerofthemunicipalityinwhich
the donor was domiciled at the time of the transfer.21 The filing of the return and payment of
donor’s taxes are mandatory. In fact, the registrar of deeds is mandated not to register in the
registry of property any document transferring real property by way of gifts inter vivos unless a
certification that the taxes fixed and actually due on the transfer had been paid or that the
transaction is tax exempt from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in either case, is presented.22
either can we give effect to the deed as a sale, barter or any other onerous conveyance,inthe
N
absenceofvalidcauseorconsiderationandconsentcompetentlyandvalidlygiven.23Whileitistrue
thattheappellatecourtfoundPlacida’sconsenttohavebeenvitiatedbymistake,hertestimonyon
the matter actually makes out acaseoftotalabsenceofconsent,notmerelyvitiationthereof.She
testified in this regard, thus:
Q- What have you been doing on that day on January 5, 1983?
A- I was at home boiling water.
Q- While you were boiling water in the house, at that time who arrived, if there was any?
A- Lydia Sumipat arrived.
Court:-(To the witness)
Q- Who is this Lydia Sumipat?
A- The daughter of my husband with his paramour.
Q- How old was she?
A- I did not know if she was already 30 years old at that time because he was born in 1950.
Atty. Legorio:-(To the witness)
Q- When you said Lydia Sumipat, you are referring to one of the defendants in this case?
A-Yes, sir. She is the one.
- This Lydia Sumipat you are referring to asoneoftheprincipaldefendantanddaughterofyour
Q
husband with his paramour, in January, 1983 what was her educational attainment, if you know?
A- She has already finished schooling.
Q- Do you know what she obtained?
A- Teacher.
- You said she arrived in the afternoon of January 5, 1983 in yourhousewhileyouwereboiling
Q
water. What did she do when she arrived there?
A- She brought with her a paper.
Q- What did she say to you?
- ShetoldmetosignthatpaperimmediatelybecausethereisthewitnesswaitingandsoIasked
A
from her what was that paper I am going to sign. I asked her becauseIamunletteredbutshe
said never mind just sign this immediately.
Q- By the way, what is your highest educational attainment?
A- I have never gone to school.
Q- Do you know how to read or to write?
A-I know how to write only my name.
Q- You know how to write your name only?
A- Yes, sir.
-Yousaidshetoldyoutosignthatpieceofpaperandyouaskedherwhatwasthatandshetold
Q
you "you just sign that", what did you do then?
A-ShewasinahurrytoletmesignthatdocumentsoIsigneditwithoutknowingwhatwas
that.
- Did she tell you that piece of paper was a document wherein the land including your land in
Q
Siayan were to be given to them?
A- I did not give my land.24
During cross-examination, Placida again denied any knowledge of the nature of the deed:
You are aware that the titles over these lots had already been transferred in the name of the
q
defendants?
aThey surreptitiously transferred the title in theirnames, I do not know about it.
q You mean to say you signed a document transferring them in their names?
There was a piece of paper broughttometobesignedbyLydia;Iaskedwhat’sallabout
a
butshedidnottellme;Iwasforcedtosignconsideringthataccordingtohersomebodywas
waiting for it.
q What do you mean that you are force to sign?
Shetoldmetosignthatpaperimmediatelybecausethereisawitnesswaitingthatpaperbutshe
a
was alone when she came to me.
q So you signed that paper?
aI signed it because she was in a hurry.
q That was done during the lifetime of your husband?
a Yes, sir.
q And your husband also signed that paper?
IdonotknowbecauseIhavenotseenmyhusbandsigned,Lydiaonlycametometoletmesign
a
that paper.
IsitnotafactthatyouandyourhusbandwerebroughtbeforetheofficeofJudgePacificoGarcia
q
of Manukan, and in the office you signed that document?
a I have not gone to the Municipal building of Manukan and I do not know Judge Garcia.
q But what you know now that the titles are transferred in the name of the defendants?
a It was Lydia who caused the transfer of the titles in their names.
q And you know that fact when you signed that paper?
a At the time Isignedthepaper,Idonotknowyetthatthetitlewouldbetransferred,itwas
nlyatthetimewhenIrequestedmyniecetofollowitupbecauseaccordingtothemIamno
o
longer entitled to the land.25
InBarandav.Baranda,26thisCourtdeclaredthatthedeedsofsalequestionedthereinarenotmerely
voidable(asintimatedbytheplaintiffsthemselvesintheircomplaintforannulmentofthedeedsand
reconveyance of the lots) but null and voidabinitioasthesupposedsellerdeclaredunderoath
thatshesignedthedeedswithoutknowingwhattheywere.Thesignificantcircumstancemeant,
theCourtadded,thatherconsentwasnotmerelymarredbyvicesofconsentsoastomake
the contracts voidable, but that she had not given her consent at all.
arenthetically,asPlacida’sComplaintisentitledDeclarationofNullityofTitles;Contracts;Partition,
P
Recovery of OwnershipandPossession;Reconveyance;AccountingandDamageswithPrayerfor
Preliminary Injunction and Receivership, the validity of the deed was directly assailed, but its
absolute nullity was not specifically raised as an issue. Nevertheless, both the RTC and the
appellate court took the cue from Placida’s theorythatthedeedismerelyvoidableasregardsher
conjugalshareoftheproperties.However,sincetherealissueiswhetherthequestioneddeedhas
validly transferredownershipofthelitigatedproperties,itisappropriatefortheCourttoinquireinto
the form ofthedeedandtheexistenceofvalidconsenttheretotoascertainthevalidityornullityof
the deed.
rom the substantive and procedural standpoints, the objectives to write finis to a protracted
F
litigationandavoidmultiplicityofsuitsareworthpursuingatalltimes.Conformably,wehaveruledin
a number of cases that anappellatecourtisaccordedbroaddiscretionarypowertoconsidereven
errors not assigned. We have applied this tenet, albeit as a matter of exception, in the following
instances: (1) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatter;(2)
matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within
contemplation of law; (3) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is
necessaryinarrivingatajustdecisionandcompleteresolutionofthecaseortoservetheinterests
ofjusticeortoavoiddispensingpiecemealjustice;(4)mattersnotspecificallyassignedaserrorson
appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue
submittedwhichthepartiesfailedtoraiseorwhichthelowercourtignored;(5)mattersnotassigned
aserrorsonappealbutcloselyrelatedtoanerrorassigned;and(6)mattersnotassignedaserrors
on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned is dependent.27
In the instant case, the validity ofthedeedwasdirectlyassailedalthoughbothpartiesareofthe
view that it is not an absolute nullity. The correct characterization of the deed is, therefore,
determinative of the present controversy. Elsewise framed, the issue of validity or nullity is
interwoven with the positions adopted by the parties and the rulings made by the courts below.
Hence, we shallberesoluteinstrikingdownthedeedespeciallyasitappearsonitsfaceto
be a patent nullity.
avingsaidthis,weshallnowproceedtotheissueofprescription.Beinganabsolutenullity,bothas
H
a donation and as a sale, the deed is subject to attackatanytime,inaccordancewiththerulein
Article 1410 of the Civil Code that an action todeclaretheinexistenceofavoidcontractdoesnot
prescribe.
We are thus unimpressed by the petitioners’ contention that the appellate court should have
ismissedPlacida’sappealonthegroundofprescription.Passageoftimecannotcurethefatalflaw
d
in an inexistent and void contract.28 The defect of inexistence of a contract is permanent and
incurable; hence, it cannot be cured either by ratification or by prescription.29
urning now to the effects of the absolute nullity ofthedeed,itiswell-settledthatwhenthereisa
T
showing of illegality, the property registered is deemed to be simply held in trust for the real
ownerbythepersoninwhosenameitisregistered,andtheformerthenhastherighttosuefor
the reconveyance of the property. The action for thepurposeisalsoimprescriptible.Aslongas
thelandwrongfullyregisteredundertheTorrenssystemisstillinthenameofthepersonwho
caused such registration, an action in personam will lie to compel him to reconvey the
property to the real owner.3 0
ne final note. After this Decision shall have become final and executory, the parties may either
O
extrajudiciallydividetheestatesofLauroSumipatandPlacidaTabotabopursuanttoRule74ofthe
Rules of Court orjudiciallysettletheestatespursuanttoRules78,etseq.,inaccordancewiththis
Decisionand the law.
HEREFORE, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision of the
W
RegionalTrialCourtdatedSeptember29,1997andtheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedApril
11,2002,aswellasitsResolutiondatedOctober16,2002,areVACATED.Inlieuthereof,judgment
isherebyrenderedinfavoroftherespondents,towit:(i)DECLARINGtheDeedofAbsoluteTransfer
and/orQuitclaimdatedJanuary5,1983NULLANDVOID;and(ii)ORDERINGtheCANCELLATION
ofTransferCertificatesofTitleNumberedT-40037andT-40038(ZamboangadelNorte)andthetax
declarationcoveringtheunregisteredparcelofland,allissuedinthenamesofthepetitionersLydia,
Laurito, Alicia, Alejandro and Lirafe, all surnamed Sumipat, and the REINSTATEMENT ofOriginal
Certificate of Title No. P-17842 (Zamboanga del Norte) Transfer Certificate Title No. T-15826
(Zamboanga del Norte) and the tax declaration covering the unregistered parcel ofland,allinthe
name of "Lauro Sumipat . . . married to Placida Tabotabo."
Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
. Shopper’s Paradise Realty and Dev’t. Corp. v. Roque, G.R. No. 148775, 13 January
3
2004.
G.R. No. 148775 January 13, 2004
SHOPPER’S PARADISE REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,petitioner,
3
vs.
EFREN P. ROQUE,respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,J.:
n 23 December 1993, petitioner Shopper’s Paradise Realty & Development Corporation,
O
representedbyitspresident,VeredignoAtienza,enteredintoatwenty-fiveyearleasewithDr.Felipe
C.Roque,nowdeceased,overaparcelofland,withanareaoftwothousandandthirtysix(2,036)
squaremeters,situatedatPlazaNovaliches,QuezonCity,coveredbyTransferofCertificateofTitle
(TCT) No. 30591 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City in the name of Dr. Roque. Petitioner
issued to Dr. Roque a check for P250,000.00 by way of "reservation payment." Simultaneously,
petitioner and Dr. Roque likewise entered into a memorandum of agreement for the construction,
developmentandoperationofacommercialbuildingcomplexontheproperty.Conformablywiththe
agreement,petitioner issued a check for another P250,000.00"downpayment" to Dr. Roque.
hecontractofleaseandthememorandumofagreement,bothnotarized,weretobeannotatedon
T
TCT No. 30591 within sixty (60) days from 23 December 1993 or until 23 February 1994. The
annotations, however, were never made because of the untimely demise of Dr. Felipe C. Roque.
ThedeathofDr.Roqueon10February1994constrainedpetitionertodealwithrespondentEfrenP.
Roque,oneofthesurvivingchildrenofthelateDr.Roque,butthenegotiationsbrokedowndue
to some disagreements. In a letter, dated 3 November 1994, respondent advised petitioner "to
desist from any attempt to enforce the aforementioned contract of lease and memorandum of
agreement". On 15 February 1995, respondent filed a case for annulmentofthecontractoflease
and the memorandum of agreement, with a prayer for the issuanceofapreliminaryinjunction,
before Branch 222 of the Regional TrialCourtofQuezonCity.EfrenP.Roqueallegedthathehad
long been the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of a deed of donation inter vivos
executedinhisfavorbyhisparents,Dr.FelipeRoqueandElisaRoque,on26December1978,and
that the late Dr. Felipe Roque had no authority to enter into the assailed agreements with
petitioner. The donation was made in a public instrument duly acknowledged by the
donor-spouses before a notary public and duly accepted on the same day by respondent
beforethenotarypublicinthesameinstrumentofdonation.Thetitletotheproperty,however,
remained in the name of Dr. Felipe C. Roque, and it was only transferred to and in the name of
respondentsixteenyearslater,oron11May1994,underTCTNo.109754oftheRegisterofDeeds
of Quezon City. Respondent, while he resided in the United States of America, delegated to his
father the mere administration of the property. Respondent came to know of the assailed
contracts with petitioner only after retiring to the Philippines upon the death of his father.
On 9 August 1996, the trial court dismissed the complaint of respondent; it explained:
" O rdinarily, a deed of donation need not be registered in order to be valid between the parties.
Registration, however, is important in binding third persons. Thus, when Felipe Roque
entered into a leased contract with defendant corporation, plaintiff Efren Roque (could) no
longerasserttheunregistereddeedofdonationandsaythathisfather,Felipe,wasnolonger
the owner of the subject property at the time the lease onthesubjectpropertywasagreed
upon.
" The registration of the DeedofDonationAFTERtheexecutionoftheleasecontractdidnotaffect
thelatterunlesshehadknowledgethereofatthetimeoftheregistrationwhichplaintiffhadnotbeen
abletoestablish.Plaintiffknewverywelloftheexistenceofthelease.He,infact,metwiththe
officers of the defendant corporationatleastoncebeforehecausedtheregistrationofthedeedof
onationinhisfavorandalthoughtheleaseitselfwasnotregistered,itremainsvalidconsidering
d
that no third person is involved. Plaintiff cannot be the third person because he is the
successor-in-interestofhisfather,FelipeRoque,thelessor,anditisarulethatcontractstakeeffect
notonlybetweenthepartiesthemselvesbutalsobetweentheirassignsandheirs(Article1311,Civil
Code) and therefore, the lease contract together with the memorandum of agreement would be
conclusive on plaintiff Efren Roque. He is bound by the contract even if he did not participate
therein.Moreover,theagreementshavebeenperfectedandpartiallyexecutedbythereceiptof
his father of the downpayment and deposit totaling toP500,000.00."1
he Trial court ordered respondent to surrender TCT No. 109754 to the Register of Deeds of
T
Quezon City for the annotation of the questioned Contract of Lease and Memorandum of
Agreement.
nappeal,theCourtofAppealsreversedthedecisionofthetrialcourtandheldtobeinvalid
O
the Contract of Lease and Memorandum of Agreement.Whileitsharedtheviewexpressedby
thetrialcourtthatadeedofdonationwouldhavetoberegisteredinordertobindthirdpersons,the
appellate court, however, concluded that petitioner was not a lessee in goodfaithhavinghad
priorknowledgeofthedonationinfavorofrespondent,andthatsuchactualknowledgehadthe
effect of registration insofar as petitioner was concerned. The appellate court based its findings
largely on the testimony of Veredigno Atienza during cross-examination,viz;
" Q.Asidefromthesetwolots,thefirstinthenameofRubenRoqueandthesecond,thesubjectof
the construction involved in this case,yousaidthereisanotherlotwhichwaspartofdevelopment
project?
" A. Yes, this was the main concept of Dr. Roque so that the adjoining properties of his twosons,
Ruben and Cesar, will comprise one whole. The other whole property belongs to Cesar.
" Q.YouwereinformedbyDr.Roquethatthispropertywasgiventohisthree(3)sons;onetoRuben
Roque, the other to Efren, and the other to Cesar Roque?
"A. Yes.
"Q. You did the inquiry from him, how was this property given to them?
"A. By inheritance.
"Q. Inheritance in the form of donation?
"A. I mean inheritance.
" Q. What I am only asking you is, were you told by Dr. Felipe C. Roque at the time of your
transaction with him that all these three properties were given to his children by way of donation?
" A. What Architect Biglang-awa told us in his exact word: "Y
ang mga yan pupunta sa mga anak.
Yong kayRubenpupuntakayRuben.YongkayEfrenpalibhasanasaAmericasya,nasapangalan
pa ni Dr. Felipe C. Roque."
"x x x xxx x x x
" Q.WhenwastheinformationsuppliedtoyoubyBiglang-awa?BeforetheexecutionoftheContract
of Lease and Memorandum of Agreement?
"A. Yes.
" Q.Thatbeingthecase,atthetimeoftheexecutionoftheagreementorsoonbefore,didyouhave
such information confirmed by Dr. Felipe C. Roque himself?
"A. Biglang-awa did it for us.
"Q. But you yourself did not?
"A. No, because I was doing certain things. We were a team and so Biglang-awa did it for us.
" Q. So in effect, anyinformationgatheredbyBiglang-awawasofthesameeffectasifreceivedby
you because you were members of the same team?
"A. Yes."2
In the instant petitionforreview,petitionerseeksareversalofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppeals
andthereinstatementoftherulingoftheRegionalTrialCourt;itarguesthatthepresumptionofgood
faith it so enjoys as a party dealing in registered land has not been overturned by the
aforequoted testimonial evidence, and that, in any event, respondent is barred by laches and
estoppel from denying the contracts.
he existence, albeit unregistered, of the donation in favor of respondent is undisputed. The trial
T
court and the appellate court have not erred in holding that the non-registration of a deed of
donation does not affect its validity. As being itself a mode of acquiring ownership, donation
results in an effective transfer of title over the property from the donor to the donee.3 In
donations of immovable property, the law requires for itsvaliditythatitshouldbecontainedina
publicdocument,specifyingthereinthepropertydonatedandthevalueofthechargeswhich
the donee must satisfy.4 The Civil Code provides, however, that "titles of ownership, or other
rightsoverimmovableproperty,whicharenotdulyinscribedorannotatedintheRegistryof
Property (now Registry of Land Titles and Deeds) shall not prejudice third persons." 5 It is
enough,betweenthepartiestoadonationofanimmovableproperty,thatthedonationbemadeina
public document but, in order to bind third persons, the donation must be registered in the
registryofProperty(RegistryofLandTitlesandDeeds).6 Consistently,Section50ofActNo.496
(Land Registration Act), as so amended by Section 51 of P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration
Decree), states:
" SECTION 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner.- An owner ofregisteredland
may convey, mortgage, lease, charge orotherwisedealwiththesameinaccordancewithexisting
laws. He may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are
sufficientinlaw.Butnodeed,mortgage,lease,orothervoluntaryinstrument,exceptawillpurporting
to convey or affect registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall
operateonlyasacontractbetweenthepartiesandasevidenceofauthoritytotheRegisterofDeeds
to make registration.
" T
he act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third
persons are concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the
office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies." (emphasis supplied)
persondealingwithregisteredlandmaythussafelyrelyonthecorrectnessofthecertificateoftitle
A
issuedtherefore,andheisnotrequiredtogobeyondthecertificatetodeterminetheconditionofthe
property7 but, where such party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is
unregisteredatthetimeheacquiredarightthereto,hisknowledgeofthatpriorunregistered
interest would have the effect of registration as regards to him.8 GG
he appellate court was not without substantial basis when it found petitioner to have had
T
knowledgeofthedonationatthetimeitenteredintothetwoagreementswithDr.Roque.During
their negotiation, petitioner, through its representatives, was apprised of the fact that the
subject property actually belonged to respondent.
It was not shown that Dr. Felipe C. Roque had been an authorized agent of respondent.
Inacontractofagency,theagentactsinrepresentationorinbehalfofanotherwiththeconsent
of the latter.9 Article 1878 of the Civil Code expresses that a special power of attorney is
necessarytoleaseanyrealpropertytoanotherpersonformorethanoneyear.Theleaseof
realpropertyformorethanoneyearisconsiderednotmerelyanactofadministrationbutan
act of strict dominionorofownership.Aspecialpowerofattorneyisthusnecessaryforits
execution through an agent.
heCourtcannotacceptpetitioner’sargumentthatrespondentisguiltyoflaches.Laches,initsreal
T
sense,isthefailureorneglect,foranunreasonableandunexplainedlengthoftime,todothatwhich,
byexercisingduediligence,couldorshouldhavebeendoneearlier;itisnegligenceoromissionto
assert a right within areasonabletime,warrantingapresumptionthatthepartyentitledtoassertit
either has abandoned or declined to assert it.10
espondent learned of thecontractsonlyinFebruary1994afterthedeathofhisfather,andinthe
R
sameyear,duringNovember,heassailedthevalidityoftheagreements.Hardly,couldrespondent
then be said to have neglected to assert his case for unreasonable length of time.
either is respondent estopped from repudiating the contracts. The essential elements of
N
estoppelinpais,inrelationtothepartysoughttobeestopped,are:1)aclearconductamountingto
false representation or concealment of material facts or, at least, calculated to convey the
impression that the facts are otherwise than, and inconsistent with, those which the party
subsequently attempts to assert; 2) an intent or, at least, an expectation, that this conduct shall
influence,orbeacteduponby,theotherparty;and3)theknowledge,actualorconstructive,byhim
oftherealfacts.11 Withrespecttothepartyclaimingtheestoppel,theconditionshemustsatisfyare:
1) lack of knowledge or of the means of knowledge of the truth as to the facts in question; 2)
reliance,ingoodfaith,upontheconductorstatementsofthepartytobeestopped;and3)actionor
inactionbasedthereonofsuchcharacterastochangehispositionorstatuscalculatedtocausehim
injury or prejudice.12 It has not been shown that respondent intended to conceal the actual
f actsconcerningtheproperty;moreimportantly,petitionerhasbeenshownnottobetotally
unaware of the real ownership of the subject property.
Altogether, there is no cogent reason to reverse the Court of Appeals in its assailed decision.
HEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals declaring the
W
contract of lease and memorandum of agreement entered into between Dr. Felipe C. Roque and
Shopper’s Paradise Realty & Development Corporation not to be binding on respondent is
AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
DIGEST 2nd CASE 5v1 MOTHER
FACTS: Thespouses Placida Tabo-tabo and Lauro Sumipatacquired three parcels of land.
The couple was childless.
auro Sumipat, however, sired five illegitimate children out of an extra-marital affair,namely:
L
herein defendants-appellees.
auro Sumipatexecuted a document denominated “DEED OF ABSOLUTE TRANSFER
L
AND/OR QUIT-CLAIM OVER REAL PROPERTIES” (the assailed document) in favor of
defendants-appelleescovering thethree parcels of land (the properties). On the document
appears thesignature of his wife Placidaindicating her marital consent thereto.
It appears that when the assailed document was executed,Lauro Sumipat was already very
sick and bedridden;that upon defendant-appellee Lydia’s request, their neighbor Benjamin
Rivera lifted the body of Lauro Sumipat whereuponLydia guided his (Lauro Sumipat’s) hand
in affixing his signature on the assailed document which she had brought;thatLydia
thereafter left but later returned on the same day and requested Lauro’s unlettered wife
Placida to sign on the assailed document, asshe did in haste, even without the latter getting
a responsive answer to her query on what it was all about.
fter Lauro Sumipat’s death, his wife Placida, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff-appellant,
A
and defendants-appelleesjointly administered the properties 50% of the produce of which
went to plaintiff-appellant.
s plaintiff-appellant’s share in the produce of the properties dwindled until she no longer
A
received any and learning that the titles to the properties in question were already
transferred/made in favor of the defendants-appellees, she filed a complaint for declaration of
nullity of titles,contracts, partition,recovery of ownership now the subject of the present
appeal.
efendant-appellee Lydia disclaims participation in the execution of the assailed document,
D
she claiming to have acquired knowledge of its existence only five days after its execution
when Lauro Sumipat gave the same to her.
TC decided the case in favor of defendants-appellees holding that by virtue of the assailed
R
document the due execution of which was not contested by plaintiff-appellant, the properties
were absolutely transferred to defendants-appellees.
ISSUE: Whether the questioned deed by its terms or under the surrounding circumstances
has validly transferred title to the disputed properties to the petitioners?
ELD: NO. A perusal of the deed reveals that it is actually a gratuitous disposition of property
H
— a donation — although Lauro Sumipat imposed upon the petitioners the condition that he
and his wife, Placida, shall be entitled to one-half (1/2) of all the fruits or produce of the
parcels of land for their subsistence and support.
itle to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee by virtue of a deed of
T
donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and the donor duly
notified thereof. The acceptance may be made in the very same instrument of donation. If the
acceptance does not appear in the same document, it must be made in another. 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 not noted in the deed
of donation and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null and void.
In this case, the donees’ acceptance of the donation is not manifested either in the deed itself
or in a separate document. Hence, the deed as an instrument of donation is patently void.
either can we give effect to the deed as a sale, barter or any other onerous conveyance, in
N
the absence of valid cause or consideration and consent competently and validly given
—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIGEST 3rd SHOPPER’S PARADISE REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs ROQUE
G.R. No. 148775. January 13, 2004
ACTS:Petitioner Shopper’s Paradise Realty & Development Corporation, represented by its
F
president, Veredigno Atienza, entered into a twenty-five year lease with Dr. Felipe C. Roque,
now deceased, over a parcel of land in the name of Roque. Petitioner issued to Dr. Roque a
check for P250,000.00 by way of “reservation payment.”Simultaneously, petitioner and Dr.
Roque likewise entered into a memorandum of agreement for the construction, development
and operation of a commercial building complex on the property. Conformably with the
agreement,petitioner issued a check for another P250,000.00 “downpayment” to Dr. Roque.
he contract of lease and the memorandum of agreement,both notarized,were never
T
annotated on the Certificate of title because of the untimely demise of Roque. Roque’s death
constrained petitioner to deal with respondent Efren P. Roque, one of the surviving children
of the late Dr. Roque, but the negotiations broke down due to some disagreements. In a
letter, respondent advised petitioner “to desist from any attempt to enforce the
aforementioned contract of lease and memorandum of agreement”. On 15 February 1995,
respondentfiled a case for annulment of the contract of lease and the memorandum of
agreement, with a prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction before the RTC alleging
that he had long been the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of a deed of
donation inter vivos executed in his favor by his parents, Dr. Felipe Roque and Elisa Roque,
and that the late Dr. Felipe Roque had no authority to enter into the assailed agreements with
petitioner. The donation was made in a public instrument duly acknowledged by the
donor-spouses before a notary public and duly accepted on the same day by respondent
before the notary public in the same instrument of donation. The title to the property,
however, remained in the name of Dr. Felipe C. Roque, and it was only transferred to and in
the name of respondent sixteen years later.
espondent, while he resided in the United States of America, delegated to his father the
R
mere administration of the property. Respondent came to know of the assailed contracts
with petitioner only after retiring to the Philippines upon the death of his father.
The RTC trial court dismissed the complaint of respondent.
n appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and held to be invalid the Contract
O
of Lease and Memorandum of Agreement.
ISSUE: W/N there was valid donation to respondent?
ELD:YES. The existence, albeit unregistered, of the donation in favor of respondent is
H
undisputed. The trial court and the appellatecourt have not erred in holding that the
non-registration of a deed of donation does not affect its validity. As being itself a mode of
acquiring ownership, donation results in an effective transfer of title over the property from
the donor to the donee.In donations of immovable property, the law requires for its validity
that it should be contained in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and
the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.The Civil Code provides, however, that
“titles of ownership, or other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or
annotated in the Registry of Property (now Registry of Land Titles and Deeds) shall not
prejudice third persons.” It is enough, between the parties to a donation of an immovable
property, that the donation be made in a public document but, in order to bind third persons,
the donation must be registered in the registry of Property (Registry of Land Titles and
Deeds).
You might also like
- DonasyonDocument10 pagesDonasyonNhaz PasandalanNo ratings yet
- Donor's Tax ReviewerDocument6 pagesDonor's Tax ReviewerMaria Victoria75% (4)
- Week 15Document6 pagesWeek 15Franch GalanzaNo ratings yet
- Chapter 1: Nature of DonationDocument7 pagesChapter 1: Nature of Donationpoppy2890No ratings yet
- Property - WK 13 NotesDocument10 pagesProperty - WK 13 NotesYnna MendozaNo ratings yet
- S A. F P: Ienna Lores RopertyDocument7 pagesS A. F P: Ienna Lores RopertyMedj Broke Law StudentNo ratings yet
- Concept of Donation: Thing RightDocument13 pagesConcept of Donation: Thing RightdaryllNo ratings yet
- Donation NotesDocument12 pagesDonation NotesSZNo ratings yet
- BUSTAX ReviewerDocument16 pagesBUSTAX ReviewerChloe ClementeNo ratings yet
- Pates - Article 725-759Document46 pagesPates - Article 725-759hiltonbraiseNo ratings yet
- Deed of Donation: (Insert Description of Property To Be Donated)Document15 pagesDeed of Donation: (Insert Description of Property To Be Donated)Japsalm Lyann AstudilloNo ratings yet
- DONORDocument5 pagesDONORJN CNo ratings yet
- 14 DonationDocument24 pages14 Donationcmv mendozaNo ratings yet
- Donation Bathan JMMDocument9 pagesDonation Bathan JMMJim M. MagadanNo ratings yet
- Taxation DONOR'S TAX (201) : A. DonationDocument7 pagesTaxation DONOR'S TAX (201) : A. DonationMae Dela PenaNo ratings yet
- Intentional Transfer of Property FromDocument9 pagesIntentional Transfer of Property FromAnnamarisse parungaoNo ratings yet
- Donors Tax 2023Document34 pagesDonors Tax 2023Stephanie AlindoganNo ratings yet
- In Executing A Deed of DonationDocument8 pagesIn Executing A Deed of DonationMelvin PernezNo ratings yet
- Deduction From The Gross EstateDocument6 pagesDeduction From The Gross EstateEmma Mariz GarciaNo ratings yet
- Donation: Concept, Nature, and Effect of DonationDocument3 pagesDonation: Concept, Nature, and Effect of DonationJim M. MagadanNo ratings yet
- Obligations and Contracts1204 To 1233Document9 pagesObligations and Contracts1204 To 1233Rhic Ryan Lhee FabianNo ratings yet
- Donation LawsDocument2 pagesDonation LawsRonaldo Jr. DIAZ100% (1)
- Donor's TaxDocument48 pagesDonor's TaxCHARLOTTE THALININo ratings yet
- OBLI (Nature)Document32 pagesOBLI (Nature)Dawson Dela CruzNo ratings yet
- DonationDocument3 pagesDonationAllysa EvangelistaNo ratings yet
- Donor's Tax - 10101Document44 pagesDonor's Tax - 10101aehy lznuscrfbjNo ratings yet
- ARTS 725-734, 748-749 Donation REVIEW23Document11 pagesARTS 725-734, 748-749 Donation REVIEW23Vikki AmorioNo ratings yet
- ACT26 - Ch02 Donors TaxDocument7 pagesACT26 - Ch02 Donors TaxMark BajacanNo ratings yet
- Gift 122-129Document3 pagesGift 122-129Sajad HussainNo ratings yet
- Donation: Real Estate Transactions Class of Atty. Wilson Legaspi Summer 2018 6:00 PM - 9:00 PMDocument15 pagesDonation: Real Estate Transactions Class of Atty. Wilson Legaspi Summer 2018 6:00 PM - 9:00 PMJessica BernardoNo ratings yet
- 4.0 Concept of Donation and Donor's TaxDocument13 pages4.0 Concept of Donation and Donor's TaxDeo CoronaNo ratings yet
- Tax FinalsDocument30 pagesTax FinalsJennie KimNo ratings yet
- DonationDocument8 pagesDonationRommel TottocNo ratings yet
- Donors TaxDocument3 pagesDonors TaxElle LegaspiNo ratings yet
- Deduction From The Gross EstateDocument5 pagesDeduction From The Gross Estaterorrory683No ratings yet
- Donation: Nature of DonationsDocument11 pagesDonation: Nature of DonationsJulius AlemanNo ratings yet
- Donor PDFDocument5 pagesDonor PDFHyun SeonNo ratings yet
- TPADocument12 pagesTPAVishwas JorwalNo ratings yet
- Obligation VanessadocxDocument34 pagesObligation Vanessadocxmarcia emstienNo ratings yet
- Natural Moral: Art. 1956 No Interest Shall Be Due Unless It Has Been Expressly Stipulated in WritingDocument6 pagesNatural Moral: Art. 1956 No Interest Shall Be Due Unless It Has Been Expressly Stipulated in WritingNico FerrerNo ratings yet
- Oblicon NotesDocument14 pagesOblicon NotesCee Silo Aban100% (1)
- Mid Term Oblicon 1ST Year PT 4Document6 pagesMid Term Oblicon 1ST Year PT 4Anya DaniellaNo ratings yet
- Nature of DonationDocument19 pagesNature of DonationMarta MeaNo ratings yet
- WET OutlineDocument73 pagesWET OutlineDave LaChappelleNo ratings yet
- Civil Code - PropertyDocument7 pagesCivil Code - PropertyFlordeliz Florida LaputNo ratings yet
- Introduction To ObliConDocument6 pagesIntroduction To ObliConMaryane AngelaNo ratings yet
- Tax Outline 1Document13 pagesTax Outline 1Rhyzlyn De OcampoNo ratings yet
- NAVARRO, ANTONETTE D - Civil LawDocument5 pagesNAVARRO, ANTONETTE D - Civil LawAntonette NavarroNo ratings yet
- Obligations and ContractsDocument58 pagesObligations and ContractsJo Arita SuarezNo ratings yet
- Oblicon Notes Obligations FinalsDocument51 pagesOblicon Notes Obligations FinalsMarco Ramon0% (1)
- Lesson 8 Donation: Methods of DonationsDocument2 pagesLesson 8 Donation: Methods of DonationsRudejane TanNo ratings yet
- Obligations ReviewerDocument9 pagesObligations ReviewerManuel MagadatuNo ratings yet
- DonationsDocument45 pagesDonationsAmbamalina ManNo ratings yet
- Obligations and Contracts Corina's NotesDocument5 pagesObligations and Contracts Corina's NotesRosalieBautistaNo ratings yet
- Arts 735-749 DonationDocument10 pagesArts 735-749 DonationMayAnn SisonNo ratings yet
- ObligationsDocument13 pagesObligationsZydalgLadyz NeadNo ratings yet
- Outline Lecture ObliconDocument21 pagesOutline Lecture ObliconPilacan KarylNo ratings yet
- Law School Survival Guide (Volume I of II) - Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales: Law School Survival GuidesFrom EverandLaw School Survival Guide (Volume I of II) - Outlines and Case Summaries for Torts, Civil Procedure, Property, Contracts & Sales: Law School Survival GuidesNo ratings yet
- BusFin-2nd SemDocument8 pagesBusFin-2nd SemMARCK JULLIAN ALFONSONo ratings yet
- Week 5 - Case DigestsDocument46 pagesWeek 5 - Case DigestsMARCK JULLIAN ALFONSONo ratings yet
- Week 2 - Case DigestsDocument14 pagesWeek 2 - Case DigestsMARCK JULLIAN ALFONSONo ratings yet
- Financial Economics of MoneyDocument24 pagesFinancial Economics of MoneyMARCK JULLIAN ALFONSONo ratings yet
- The Finance FunctionsDocument29 pagesThe Finance FunctionsMARCK JULLIAN ALFONSONo ratings yet
- Money and Banking in The PhilippinesDocument36 pagesMoney and Banking in The PhilippinesMARCK JULLIAN ALFONSONo ratings yet
- Ip Law SalaDocument12 pagesIp Law SalaMARCK JULLIAN ALFONSONo ratings yet
- Pilar Juliana CayetanoDocument1 pagePilar Juliana CayetanoVERA FilesNo ratings yet
- CANON 2 RULE 12.03: Republic of The Philippines Manila en BancDocument25 pagesCANON 2 RULE 12.03: Republic of The Philippines Manila en BancJenifer PaglinawanNo ratings yet
- Francisco I. Chavez, Petitioner, vs. Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, RespondentsDocument9 pagesFrancisco I. Chavez, Petitioner, vs. Public Estates Authority and Amari Coastal Bay Development Corporation, RespondentsKPPNo ratings yet
- Public Corp Reviewer From AteneoDocument7 pagesPublic Corp Reviewer From AteneoKR ReborosoNo ratings yet
- Case Study CarbillDocument11 pagesCase Study CarbillSwapnil SaikiaNo ratings yet
- Facts:: Doctrine of Primary JurisdictionDocument5 pagesFacts:: Doctrine of Primary JurisdictionJean TorresNo ratings yet
- Heirs of Fe Tan Uy v. International Exchange BankDocument7 pagesHeirs of Fe Tan Uy v. International Exchange BankGela Bea BarriosNo ratings yet
- What Type of Government Does Denmark HaveDocument2 pagesWhat Type of Government Does Denmark HaveBryan PalmaNo ratings yet
- Addendum To The Extrajudicial Settlement of EstateDocument6 pagesAddendum To The Extrajudicial Settlement of EstateZarjoshkyen MactarNo ratings yet
- Legal Technique Complete Case DigestDocument24 pagesLegal Technique Complete Case DigestYeisha Milo100% (2)
- An Extract Of: Mulungushi University Pursuing The Frontiers of KnowledgeDocument14 pagesAn Extract Of: Mulungushi University Pursuing The Frontiers of KnowledgeGriffin chikusiNo ratings yet
- Russia UNSC Position PaperDocument3 pagesRussia UNSC Position PaperSukhanAtwalNo ratings yet
- Case Digest - Rem 2Document23 pagesCase Digest - Rem 2Stephen Humiwat100% (1)
- Lease EssaysDocument5 pagesLease Essayszamrank91No ratings yet
- Wright Patt Lawsuit Official Complaint Feb 16thDocument22 pagesWright Patt Lawsuit Official Complaint Feb 16thJosh RichardsonNo ratings yet
- KeepTheRepublicKillTheTakeover 10sept2021Document224 pagesKeepTheRepublicKillTheTakeover 10sept2021El Jibarito100% (1)
- 46 Virata Vs SandiganbayanDocument2 pages46 Virata Vs SandiganbayanFrancis Masiglat100% (2)
- 103-Garcia v. Executive Secretary, July 3, 1992Document5 pages103-Garcia v. Executive Secretary, July 3, 1992Jopan SJNo ratings yet
- Board Staff Response To Respondent's Motion For Continuance of Hearing On The Merits and To Modify Order No. 27Document55 pagesBoard Staff Response To Respondent's Motion For Continuance of Hearing On The Merits and To Modify Order No. 27nmillercheNo ratings yet
- Gammon - Philippines - Inc. - v. - Metro - Rail Full TextDocument8 pagesGammon - Philippines - Inc. - v. - Metro - Rail Full Textanon_659488182No ratings yet
- Final Moot MemorialDocument27 pagesFinal Moot MemorialTanu PatelNo ratings yet
- Transnational Legal Activism in Global Value Chains: The Ali Enterprises Factory Fire and The Struggle For Justice 1st Edition Miriam Saage-MaaßDocument70 pagesTransnational Legal Activism in Global Value Chains: The Ali Enterprises Factory Fire and The Struggle For Justice 1st Edition Miriam Saage-Maaßolwenpashta100% (6)
- StepsDocument9 pagesStepsAmirul IslamNo ratings yet
- Taxing Transactions Between Clubs and Their Members 2Document11 pagesTaxing Transactions Between Clubs and Their Members 2ADAYSA HOTANo ratings yet
- Test Bank For Criminal Law 1st Edition John L WorrallDocument20 pagesTest Bank For Criminal Law 1st Edition John L WorrallclitusandreasvzNo ratings yet
- Religion in The Public Schools - Entire TextDocument132 pagesReligion in The Public Schools - Entire TextHope Celeste JacksonNo ratings yet
- Borlands Trustees v. Steel BrothersDocument16 pagesBorlands Trustees v. Steel BrothersKaran VyasNo ratings yet
- Draft Resolution - VAW To BCPCDocument3 pagesDraft Resolution - VAW To BCPCCDW CuruanNo ratings yet
- SARFAESI Act - Key CasesDocument4 pagesSARFAESI Act - Key CasesPritha SrikumarNo ratings yet
- The Emergency Law in MalysiaDocument20 pagesThe Emergency Law in MalysiaRemy SinyeeNo ratings yet
