Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Topic: Forms of Donation

VALENCIA v LOCQUIAO
October 3, 2003
Ponente: J. Tinga
FACTS:

- 2 consolidated cases involving an action for annulment of title and an action for ejectment
concerning the same parcel of land in Pangasinan originally owned by spouses Locquiao.

- May 22, 1944: they executed a deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of their son Benito and
prospective bride Tomasa, which includes the land in question.

- The donees took their marriage vows and the fact of their marriage was inscribed at the back of
Original Certificate of Title No. 18383.

- With the permission of Benito and Tomasa, petitioner Romana Valencia took possession and
cultivated the subject land. When her husband got sick, her daughter Constancia was in
possession of the land.

- Respondents Benito and Tomasa registered the deed of donation propter nuptias and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 84897 was issued in their name.

- Constancia then filed an action for annulment of title against respondents in RTC of Pangasinan,
the case was dismissed but it did not indicate the reason for dismissal.

- EJECTMENT CASE: Benito then filed with the MTC of Urdaneta a complaint seeking the
ejectment of Constancia from subject property. MTC ruled in favor of Benito and ordered
Constancia to vacate the property.

- ANNULMENT OF TITLE: Constancia and Romana countered with a complaint for the
annulment of TCT No. 84897 alleging among others, that the donation did not observe the form
required by law as there was no written acceptance on the document itself or in a separate
public instrument.

- The decision for the ejectment case was appealed on the same RTC, finding that the question
on ownership was the central issue the ejectment case was suspended until ownership issue is
settled.

- RTC ruled in favor of Benito in the complaint for annulment of title and as such affirmed in toto
the decision of MTC in the ejectment case.

- Petitioners then elevated the 2 decisions with the Court of Appeals which AFFIRMED the
assailed RTC decisions.

ISSUE: WON acceptance of the donation by the donees is required in donations propter nuptias.
HELD: No, acceptance is not necessary for the validity of such gifts.

- Unlike ordinary donations, donations propter nuptias or donations by reason of marriage are
those made before its celebration in consideration of the same and in favor of one or both of the
future spouses. Distinction is crucial since they have different formal essential requisites.

- Under the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias must be made in a public instrument in
which the property must be specifically described. However, Art. 1330 of the same code
provides that acceptance is not necessary for the validity of such gifts. The marriage between
the beneficiary couple, and compliance with the prescribed form, is enough to effectuate the
donation propter nuptias.

- Under the New Civil Code, as per Art. 127 donations propter nuptias are regulated by the

Statutes of Frauds. Art. 1403(2) requires that the contracts must be in writing to be enforceable.
However, as provided in Art. 129, express acceptance is not necessary for the validity of
these donations. Implied acceptance is sufficient.

- The Old Civil Code applies to the case at bar since the donation propter nuptias was executed

in 1944 and the New Civil Code took effect only on August 30, 1950. Although the Philippines
was under Japanese occupation at the time, only political laws are deemed abrogated by a
change of sovereignty.

- As such, petitioners' arguments must fail either under the Old or New Civil Code. CA decision is
AFFIRMED.

Вам также может понравиться