Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

PAJARILLO VS IAC Facts: Perfecta baleen died in 1945 leaving a 28-hectare lot.

Perfecta was survived by sister juana and brother felipe. May 1946 juana and felipe executed an Extrajudicial Sale of the Estate of Perfecta, which states that Felipe and Juana agreed to carryout the requests of perfecta that in consideration of her love and affection it be donated to Salud who is the daughter of Juana. June 1946 Salud executed the following public instrument which states: that I salud the only done do hereby receive and accept this donation and further express my gratitude for the kindness and liberality of the donors, felipe and juana. 1951, acceding to the request of her mother juana, salud transferred possession of the lot to her mother who was them living with Claudio saluds brother and his family. During the period they were occupying the land, Claudio paid realty taxes. May 25, 1956 Juana executed a deed of absolute sale conveying the land to Claudio for 12,000. Claudio had the land registered in his name and was issue tct. 1963, juana died. 1965 salud filed a complaint for reconveyance on the ground that deed of sale in favor of Claudio was fictitious and its registration was null and void. Claudio argues that the fact that acceptance was made in separate instrument was not noted in both instruments as required by the civil code. ISSUE: WON THE DONATION IS VALID HELD: YES. It is true that there is nothing in either of the two instruments showing that authentic notice of the acceptance was made by salud to felipe. And while the first instrument contains the statement that the done does hereby accept this donation and does hereby express her gratitude for the kindness and liberality of the donor the only signatories thereof were Felipe and Juana.. That was in fact the reason for separate instrument f acceptance signed by Salud a month later. A strict interpretation of art 633 of the old civil code, can lead to no other conclusion that on the annulment of the donation for being defective in for. This would be in keeping with the unmistakable language of art. 633. A literal adherence to the requirement of the law might result not in justice to the parties but conversely a distortion of their intentions it is also a policy of the court to avoid such an interpretation. The purpose of the formal requirement is to insure that the acceptance of the donation is duly communicated to the donor. Here it is not even, suggested that Juana was unaware of the acceptance for she in fact confirmed it later and requested that the donated land be not registered during her lifetime by salud. The donation cannot be declared ineffective just because there is no notation in the EJS of donees acceptance that would be placing too much stress on mere form over the substance. It would also be disregard the clear reality of the acceptance of the donation as manifested in these separate instrument and as later acknowledge and as latter acknowledged by juana.