11/12/2019 G.R. No. 106755 February 1, 2002 - APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

: FEBRUARY 2002 - PHILIPPIN…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Tweet
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > February 2002 Decisions > G.R. No. 106755 February 1,
2002 - APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 106755. February 1, 2002.]

APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT, Petitioner, v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and FLORENTINO

LUMUBOS, DOMINGO COMIA, TEODORA CARAMPOT, ERNESTO APOLO, SEGUNDA SUMPELO,
MAMERTO SUMPELO and RICARDO SUMPELO, Respondents.

DECISION

DE LEON, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review of the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, 2 dated June 30, 1989
reversing the Decision, 3 dated August 15, 1986 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite, Branch 17.
The Decision of the RTC dismissed Civil Case No. 4426 which is an action for annulment of title,
reconveyance and damages. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

The facts of the case are as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Basilisa Comerciante is a mother of five (5) children, namely, Rosario Austria, Consolacion Austria, herein
petitioner Apolinaria Austria-Magat, Leonardo, and one of herein respondents, Florentino Lumubos.
Leonardo died in a Japanese concentration camp at Tarlac during World War II.

In 1953, Basilisa bought a parcel of residential land together with the improvement thereon covered and
described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4036 (T-3268) and known as Lot 1, Block 1, Cavite Beach
Subdivision, with an area of 150 square meters, located in Bagong Pook, San Antonio, Cavite City.
DebtKollect Company, Inc.
On December 17, 1975, Basilisa executed a document designated as "Kasulatan sa Kaloobpala
(Donation)." The said document which was notarized by Atty. Carlos Viniegra, reads as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

KASULATANG SA KALOOBPALA

(DONATION)

TALASTASIN NG LAHAT AT SINUMAN: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Na ako, si BASELISA COMERCIANTE, may sapat na gulang, Filipina, balo, at naninirahan sa blg. 809 L.
Javier Bagong Pook, San Antonio, Lungsod ng Kabite, Filipinas, sa pamamagitan ng kasulatang ito’y

NAGSASALAYSAY

Na alang-alang sa mabuting paglilingkod at pagtingin na iniukol sa akin ng apat kong mga tunay na anak
na sila:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

ROSARIO AUSTRIA, Filipina, may sapat na gulang, balo, naninirahan sa 809 L. Javier, Bagong Pook, San
Antonio, Lungsod ng Kabite;

CONSOLACION AUSTRIA, Filipino, may sapat na gulang, balo naninirahan sa 809 L. Javier, Bagong Pook,

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2002februarydecisions.php?id=150 1/6
11/12/2019 G.R. No. 106755 February 1, 2002 - APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 2002 - PHILIPPIN…
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
Division
February-2002
Jurisprudence                  Tagatanggap-pala
A.C. No. 5574 February 1, 2002 - TEODOLFO REYES
v. ATTY. ROLANDO JAVIER
G.R. Nos. 102390 & 102404 February 1, 2002 - REY
LAÑADA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 106755 February 1, 2002 - APOLINARIA
AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 114231 February 1, 2002 - MANILA
ELECTRIC COMPANY v. NELIA A. BARLIS
G.R. Nos. 117913 & 117914 February 1, 2002 -
CHARLES LEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132286 February 1, 2002 - LOLIHALA
SABERON LERCANA v. PORFERIO JALANDONI, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 144476 & 144629 February 1, 2002 -
ONG YONG, ET AL. v. DAVID S. TIU, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1264 February 4, 2002 - RAMIR
MINA v. JUDGE RODOLFO GATDULA
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 February 4, 2002 - DR
EDGARDO ALDAY, ET AL. v. JUDGE ESCOLASTICO U.
CRUZ, JR.
G.R. No. 123557 February 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. LEONARDO BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 132339 February 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. JOSE CAMACHO TORREJA
G.R. Nos. 140393-94 February 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MARCOS ASUELA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 140633 February 4, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 145872 February 4, 2002 - GLORIA
OCAMPO-PAULE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 147927 February 4, 2002 - RAYMUNDO M.
ADORMEO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 148075 February 4, 2002 - PANGKAT
LAGUNA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 132816 February 5, 2002 - SUSANA B.
CABAHUG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
G.R. No. 133799 February 5, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. GEORGINO BONIFACIO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 139539 February 5, 2002 - CEROFERR
REALTY CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
A.C. No. 2417 February 6, 2002 - ALEX ONG v.
ATTY. ELPIDIO D. UNTO
A.C. No. 4738 February 6, 2002 - VIOLETA FLORES
ALITAGTAG v. ATTY. VIRGILIO R. GARCIA
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2002februarydecisions.php?id=150
San Antonio, Lungsod ng Kabite;
APOLINARIA AUSTRIA, Filipina, may sapat na gulang, may asawa, naninirahan sa Pasong Kawayan, Hen.
Trias, Kabite;
FLORENTINO LUMUBOS, Filipino, may sapat na gulang, asawa ni Encarnacion Magsino, at naninirahan din
sa 809 L. Javier, Bagong Pook, San Antonio, Lungsod ng Kabite; ay
Kusang loob na ibinibigay ko at ipinagkakaloob ng ganap at hindi na mababawi sa naulit ng apat na anak
ko at sa kanilang mga tagamagmana (sic), ang aking isang lupang residential o tirahan sampu ng aking
bahay nahan ng nakatirik doon na nasa Bagong Pook din, San Antonio, Lungsod ng Kabite, at nakikilala
bilang Lote no. 7, Block no. 1, of Subdivision Plan Psd-12247; known as Cavite Beach Subdivision; being
a portion of Lot No. 1055, of the Cadastral survey of Cavite, GLRO Cadastral Rec. no. 9539; may sukat
na 150 metros cuadrados, at nakatala sa pangalan ko sa Titulo Torrens bilang TCT-T-3268 (RT-4036) ng
Lungsod ng Kabite;
Na ang Kaloob palang ito ay magkakabisa lamang simula sa araw na ako’y pumanaw sa mundo, at sa
ilalim ng kondision na: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Magbubuhat o babawasin sa halaga ng nasabing lupa at bahay ang anumang magugul o gastos sa aking
libing at nicho at ang anumang matitira ay hahatiin ng APAT na parte, parepareho isang parte sa bawat
anak kong nasasabi sa itaas nito upang maliwanang (sic) at walang makakalamang sinoman sa kanila;
At kaming apat na anak na nakalagda o nakadiit sa kasulatang ito ay TINATANGGAP NAMIN ang kaloob-
palang ito ng arcing magulang na si Basilisa Comerciante, at tuloy pinasasalamatan namin siya ng taos
sa (sic) puso dahil sa kagandahan look (sic) niyang ito sa amin.
SA KATUNAYAN, ay nilagdaan o diniitan namin ito sa Nobeleta, Kabite, ngayong ika-17 ng Disyembre
taong 1975.
HER MARK HER MARK
BASELISA COMERCIANTE ROSARIO AUSTRIA
Tagakaloobpala
(Sgd.) APOLINARIA AUSTRIA HER MARK
Tagatanggap-pala CONSOLACION AUSTRIA
(Sgd.) FLORENTINO LUMUBOS
(Acknowledgment signed by Notary Public C.T. Viniegra is omitted). 4
Basilisa and her said children likewise executed another notarized document denominated as "Kasulatan"
which is attached to the deed of donation. The said document states that: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
KASULATAN
TALASTASIN NG MADLA: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Na kaming mga nakalagda o nakadiit sa labak nito — sila Basilisa Comerciante at ang kanyang mga anak
na sila:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Rosario Austria, Consolacion Austria, Apolonio Austria, at Florentino Lumubos, pawang may mga sapat na
gulang, na lumagda o dumiit sa kasulatang kaloob pala, na sinangayunan namin sa harap ng Notario
Publico, Carlos T. Viniegra, ay nagpapahayag ng sumusunod: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Na ang titulo numero TCT-T-2260 (RT-4036) ng Lungsod ng Kabite, bahay sa loteng tirahan ng Bagong
Pook na nababanggit sa nasabing kasulatan, ay mananatili sa poder o possession ng Ina, na si Basilisa
Comerciante habang siya ay nabubuhay at
Gayon din ang nasabing Titulo ay hindi mapapasangla o maipagbibili ang lupa habang maybuhay ang
nasabing Basilisa Comerciante.
Sa katunayan ang nagsilagda kaming lahat sa labak nito sa harap ng abogado Carlos T. Viniegra at
dalawang saksi.
Nobeleta, Kabite. Ika-17 ng Disyembre, 1975. 5
On February 6, 1979, Basilisa executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject house and lot in favor of
herein petitioner Apolinaria Austria-Magat for Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). As the result of the
registration of that sale, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT for brevity) No. RT-4036 in the name of the
donor was cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. T-10434 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Cavite
City in favor of petitioner Apolinaria Austria-Magat on February 8, 1979.
On September 21, 1983, herein respondents Teodora Carampot, Domingo Comia, and Ernesto Apolo
(representing their deceased mother Consolacion Austria), Ricardo, Mamerto and Segunda, all surnamed
Sumpelo (representing their deceased mother Rosario Austria) and Florentino Lumubos filed before the
Regional Trial Court of Cavite an action, docketed as Civil Case No. 4426 against the petitioner for
annulment of TCT No. T-10434 and other relevant documents, and for reconveyance and damages.
On August 15, 1986, the trial court dismissed Civil Case No. 4426 per its Decision, the dispositive portion
of which reads: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby renders judgment for defendant dismissing this
case and ordering plaintiffs to pay the amount of P3,000.00 as attorney’s fees and the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED. 6
According to the trial court, the donation is a donation mortis causa pursuant to Article 728 of the New
Civil Code inasmuch as the same expressly provides that it would take effect upon the death of the
donor; that the provision stating that the donor reserved the right to revoke the donation is a feature of
a donation mortis causa which must comply with the formalities of a will; and that inasmuch as the
donation did not follow the formalities pertaining to wills, the same is void and produced no effect
whatsoever. Hence, the safe by the donor of the said property was valid since she remained to be the
absolute owner thereof during the time of the said transaction.
On appeal, the decision of the trial court was reversed by the Court of Appeals in its subject decision, the
dispositive portion of which reads, to wit:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
2/6
11/12/2019 G.R. No. 106755 February 1, 2002 - APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 2002 - PHILIPPIN…
A.M. No. P-02-1541 February 6, 2002 - rendered: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
FLORENTINO A. MERCADO, JR. v. NOEL T. MANALO
G.R. No. 122930 February 6, 2002 - SPS. VICTORIA
and ARTURO SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126515 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. SSGT. DOMINGO DALMACIO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 126638 February 6, 2002 - ROSANNA B.
BARBA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 127094 February 6, 2002 - ALEJANDRIA
PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 129919 February 6, 2002 - DOMINION
INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 131392 February 6, 2002 - CITY
GOVERNMENT OF MAKATI CITY v. CIVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION, ET AL.
G.R. No. 131808 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROGELIO C. FELIPE
G.R. No. 132568 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. MATT G. CAMPOMANES, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 133008-24 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO RODAVIA
G.R. No. 133185 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. EDWARD OLLAMINA
G.R. Nos. 137401-03 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. TOMAS MARCELLANA
G.R. Nos. 137610-11 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 137621 February 6, 2002 - HAGONOY
MARKET VENDOR ASSO. v. MUNICIPALITY OF
HAGONOY, BULACAN
G.R. No. 137963 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROGELIO CAIÑGAT
G.R. No. 138987 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ
G.R. No. 139330 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ROGELIO SANSAET, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 139616-17 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. NATHANIEL PONSARAN, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 140199-200 February 6, 2002 - FELICITO
S. MACALINO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 142920 February 6, 2002 - DOROTEO
SALAZAR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 143363 February 6, 2002 - ST. MARY’S
ACADEMY v. WILLIAM CARPITANOS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 143370 February 6, 2002 - MARIO J.
MENDEZONA, ET AL. v. JULIO H. OZAMIZ, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 144086-87 February 6, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. EDRALIN TABOGA
G.R. No. 122906 February 7, 2002 - DINAH B.
TONOG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 139768 February 7, 2002 - ALFONSO T.
YUCHENGCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 138382-84 February 12, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ASPIRAS
G.R. No. 138677 February 12, 2002 - TOLOMEO
LIGUTAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1339 February 13, 2002 - EFREN
MORALES, SR. v. JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1636 February 13, 2002 - OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE ANTONIO
P. QUIZON, ET AL.
G.R. No. 117202 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DEORITO PORIO
G.R. No. 131773 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ANABEL VILLANUEVA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133964 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RAMIL PEÑA
G.R. No. 138454 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JOCEL BEJO
G.R. Nos. 140218-23 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS ESCAÑO
G.R. No. 140550 February 13, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. EDGAR AYUPAN, ET AL.
A.M. No. P-00-1407 February 15, 2002 - SPS.
FELIPE and ROSELYN BIGLETE v. BONIFACIO V.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2002februarydecisions.php?id=150
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one
1. declaring null and void the Deed of Sale of Registered Land (Annex B) and Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-10434 of the Registry of Deeds of Cavite City (Annex E) and ordering the cancellation thereof; and
2. declaring appellants and appellee co-owners of the house and lot in question in accordance with the
deed of donation executed by Basilisa Comerciante on December 17, 1975.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 7
The appellate court declared in its decision that: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
In the case at bar, the decisive proof that the deed is a donation inter vivos is in the provision that:
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Ibinibigay ko at ipinagkakaloob ng ganap at hindi mababawi sa naulit na apat na anak ko at sa kanilang
mga tagapagmana, ang aking lupang residential o tirahan sampu ng aking bahay nakatirik doon . . .
(Emphasis supplied)
This is a clear expression of the irrevocability of the conveyance. The irrevocability of the donation is a
characteristic of a donation inter vivos. By the words "hindi mababawi", the donor expressly renounced
the right to freely dispose of the house and lot in question. The right to dispose of a property is a right
essential to full ownership. Hence, ownership of the house and lot was already with the donees even
during the donor’s lifetime. . .
x x x
In the attached document to the deed of donation, the donor and her children stipulated that: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Gayon din ang nasabing titulo ay hindi mapapasangla o maipagbibili ang lupa habang may buhay ang
nasabing Basilisa Comerciante." cralaw virtua1aw library
The stipulation is a reiteration of the irrevocability of the dispossession on the part of the donor. On the
other hand, the prohibition to encumber, alienate or sell the property during the lifetime of the donor is a
recognition of the ownership over the house and lot in issue of the donees for only in the concept of an
owner can one encumber or dispose a property. 8
Hence this appeal grounded on the following assignment of errors: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS, WITH DUE RESPECT, IGNORED THE RULES OF INTERPRETATION
OF CONTRACTS WHEN IT CONSIDERED THE DONATION IN QUESTION AS INTER VIVOS.
II
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS, AGAIN WITH DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE
PRESENT ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 9
Anent the first assignment of error, the petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that
the donation was a donation inter vivos. She claims that in interpreting a document, the other relevant
provisions therein must be read in conjunction with the rest. While the document indeed stated that the
donation was irrevocable, that must be interpreted in the light of the provisions providing that the
donation cannot be encumbered, alienated or sold by anyone, that the property donated shall remain in
the possession of the donor while she is alive, and that the donation shall take effect only when she dies.
Also, the petitioner claims that the donation is mortis causa for the reason that the contemporaneous and
subsequent acts of the donor, Basilisa Comerciante, showed such intention. Petitioner cites the testimony
of Atty. Viniegra, who notarized the deed of donation, that it was the intent of the donor to maintain
control over the property while she was alive; that such intent was shown when she actually sold the lot
to herein petitioner.
We affirm the appellate court’s decision.
The provisions in the subject deed of donation that are crucial for the determination of the class to which
the donation belongs are, as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
x x x
. . . (I)binibigay ko at ipinagkakaloob ng ganap at hindi mababawi sa naulit na apat na anak ko at sa
kanilang mga tagapagmana, ang aking lupang residential o tirahan sampu ng aking bahay nakatirik doon
na nasa Bagong Pook din, San Antonio, Lungsod ng Kabite
x x x
Na ang Kaloob palang ito ay magkakabisa lamang simula sa araw na ako’y pumanaw sa mundo, . . . .
Na ang titulo numero TCT-T-2260 (RT-4036) ng Lungsod ng Kabite, bahay sa loteng tirahan ng Bagong
Pook na nababanggit sa nasabing kasulatan, ay mananatili sa power o possession ng Ina, na si Basilisa
Comerciante habang siya ay nabubuhay at
Gayon din ang nasabing Titulo ay hindi mapapasangla o maipagbibili ang lupa habang maybuhay ang
nasabing Basilisa Comerciante . . .
It has been held that whether the donation is inter vivos or mortis causa depends on whether the donor
intended to transfer ownership over the properties upon the execution of the deed. 10 In Bonsato v.
Court of Appeals, 11 this Court enumerated the characteristics of a donation mortis causa, to wit: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or, what
amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of
the property while alive;
(2) That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but
revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the
properties conveyed;
(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.
3/6
11/12/2019 G.R. No. 106755 February 1, 2002 - APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 2002 - PHILIPPIN…
MAPUTI, JR.
A.M. No. P-00-1441 February 15, 2002 - RODOLFO
S. CRUZ v. VIRGILIO F. VILLAR, ET AL.
G.R. No. 124525 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SAN JUAN
G.R. No. 124666 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RENATO SAMSON
G.R. No. 125797 February 15, 2002 - DENR v.
GREGORIO DARAMAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128118 February 15, 2002 - GSIS v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 128996 February 15, 2002 - CARMEN LL.
INTENGAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130596 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO CASTILLANO
G.R. No. 131200 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MARIO CASTILLO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 133632 February 15, 2002 - BPI
INVESTMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 134139-40 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO SOMODIO
G.R. No. 135026 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. NILO HERMO
G.R. No. 137745 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO TAGUN
G.R. No. 139578 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. MANUEL BANIEGA
G.R. Nos. 140729-30 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO QUARRE
G.R. No. 141238 February 15, 2002 - SATURNINO
SALERA, JR., ET AL. v. A-1 INVESTORS, INC.
G.R. Nos. 142561-62 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE VELASQUEZ
G.R. No. 143481 February 15, 2002 - NATIONAL
ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION v. COMMISSION
ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 143764 February 15, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. SAM HINAUT
G.R. No. 144227 February 15, 2002 - GEORGINA
HILADO v. HEIRS OF RAFAEL MEDALLA
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1395 February 19, 2002 -
BAIKONG AKANG CAMSA v. JUDGE AURELIO D.
RENDON, ET AL.
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1596 February 19, 2002 - ATTY.
JOSE B. ECHAVES v. JUDGE RUMOLDO R. FERNANDEZ,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 127536 February 19, 2002 - CESAR JARO
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130489 February 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JESUS JAVIER
G.R. No. 133650 February 19, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. RAMIL MATIC, ET AL.
G.R. No. 140651 February 19, 2002 - ESTELITA G.
HERRERA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 144499 February 19, 2002 - FIRST GLOBAL
REALTY AND DEV’T. CORP. v. CHRISTOPHER SAN
AGUSTIN
G.R. No. 121106 February 20, 2002 - DURISOL
PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 124975 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. FLORIANO AMAQUIN
G.R. No. 133444 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. IÑEGO LAS PIÑAS, JR.
G.R. Nos. 133583-85 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO BERNAS
G.R. No. 134767 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROLLY ESPEJON
G.R. Nos. 139112-13 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TITO LAVADOR
G.R. Nos. 139698-726 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO D. MATUGAS
G.R. No. 142572 February 20, 2002 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHIL. v. CARMEL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
G.R. Nos. 143755-58 February 20, 2002 - PEOPLE
OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO PAJARILLO
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2002februarydecisions.php?id=150
Significant to the resolution of this issue is the irrevocable character of the donation in the case at bar. In
Cuevas v. Cuevas, 12 we ruled that when the deed of donation provides that the donor will not dispose or
take away the property donated (thus making the donation irrevocable), he in effect is making a donation
inter vivos. He parts away with his naked title but maintains beneficial ownership while he lives. It
remains to be a donation inter vivos despite an express provision that the donor continues to be in
possession and enjoyment of the donated property while he is alive. In the Bonsato case, we held that: chanrob1es virtual
1aw library
(W)hat is most significant [in determining the type of donation] is the absence of stipulation that the
donor could revoke the donations; on the contrary, the deeds expressly declare them to be "irrevocable",
a quality absolutely incompatible with the idea of conveyances mortis cause where revocability is of the
essence of the act, to the extent that a testator can not lawfully waive or restrict his right of revocation
(Old Civil Code, Art. 737; New Civil Code, Art. 828). 13
Construing together the provisions of the deed of donation, we find and so hold that in the case at bar
the donation is inter vivos. The express irrevocability of the same ("hindi na mababawi") is the distinctive
standard that identifies that document as a donation inter vivos. The other provisions therein which
seemingly make the donation mortis causa do not go against the irrevocable character of the subject
donation. According to the petitioner, the provisions which state that the same will only take effect upon
the death of the donor and that there is a prohibition to alienate, encumber, dispose, or sell the same,
are proofs that the donation is mortis causa. We disagree. The said provisions should be harmonized with
its express irrevocability. In Bonsato where the donation per the deed of donation would also take effect
upon the death of the donor with reservation for the donor to enjoy the fruits of the land, the Court held
that the said statements only mean that after the donor’s death, the donation will take effect so as to
make the donees the absolute owners of the donated property, free from all liens and encumbrances; for
it must be remembered that the donor reserved for himself a share of the fruits of the land donated." 14
In Gestopa v. Court of Appeals, 15 this Court held that the prohibition to alienate does not necessarily
defeat the inter vivos character of the donation. It even highlights the fact that what remains with the
donor is the right of usufruct and not anymore the naked title of ownership over the property donated. In
the case at bar, the provision in the deed of donation that the donated property will remain in the
possession of the donor just goes to show that the donor has given up his naked title of ownership
thereto and has maintained only the right to use (jus utendi) and possess (jus possidendi) the subject
donated property.
Thus, we arrive at no other conclusion in that the petitioner’s cited provisions are only necessary
assurances that during the donor’s lifetime, the latter would still enjoy the right of possession over the
property; but, his naked title of ownership has been passed on to the donees; and that upon the donor’s
death, the donees would get all the rights of ownership over the same including the right to use and
possess the same.
Furthermore, it also appeared that the provision in the deed of donation regarding the prohibition to
alienate the subject property is couched in general terms such that even the donor is deemed included in
the said prohibition ("Gayon din ang nasabing Titulo ay hindi mapapasangla o maipagbibili ang lupa
habang maybuhay ang nasabing Basilisa Comerciante"). Both the donor and the donees were prohibited
from alienating and encumbering the property during the lifetime of the donor. If the donor intended to
maintain full ownership over the said property until her death, she could have expressly stated therein a
reservation of her right to dispose of the same. The prohibition on the donor to alienate the said property
during her lifetime is proof that naked ownership over the property has been transferred to the donees. It
also supports the irrevocable nature of the donation considering that the donor has already divested
herself of the right to dispose of the donated property. On the other hand, the prohibition on the donees
only meant that they may not mortgage or dispose the donated property while the donor enjoys and
possesses the property during her lifetime. However, it is clear that the donees were already the owners
of the subject property due to the irrevocable character of the donation.
The petitioner argues that the subsequent and contemporaneous acts of the donor would show that her
intention was to maintain control over her properties while she was still living. We disagree. Respondent
Domingo Comia testified that sometime in 1977 or prior to the sale of the subject house and lot, his
grandmother, the donor in the case at bar, delivered the title of the said property to him; and that the act
of the donor was a manifestation that she was acknowledging the ownership of the donees over the
property donated. 16 Moreover, Atty. Viniegra testified that when the donor sold the lot to the petitioner
herein, she was not doing so in accordance with the agreement and intent of the parties in the deed of
donation; that she was disregarding the provision in the deed of donation prohibiting the alienation of the
subject property; and that she knew that the prohibition covers her as well as the donees. 17
Another indication in the deed of donation that the donation is inter vivos is the acceptance clause
therein of the donees. We have ruled that an acceptance clause is a mark that the donation is inter vivos.
Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter vivos. On the other hand, donations mortis causa, being
in the form of a will, are not required to be accepted by the donees during the donor’s lifetime. 18
We now rule on whether the donor validly revoked the donation when one of her daughters and donees,
Consolacion Austria, violated the prohibition to encumber the property. When Consolacion Austria
mortgaged the subject property to a certain Baby Santos, the donor, Basilisa Comerciante, asked one of
the respondents herein, Domingo Comia, to redeem the property, which the latter did. After the
petitioner in turn redeemed the property from respondent Domingo, the donor, Basilisa, sold the property
to the petitioner who is one of the donees.
The act of selling the subject property to the petitioner herein cannot be considered as a valid act of
revocation of the deed of donation for the reason that a formal case to revoke the donation must be filed
pursuant to Article 764 of the Civil Code 19 which speaks of an action that has a prescriptive period of
four (4) years from non-compliance with the condition stated in the deed of donation. The rule that there
can be automatic revocation without benefit of a court action does not apply to the case at bar for the
reason that the subject deed of donation is devoid of any provision providing for automatic revocation in
event of non-compliance with the any of the conditions set forth therein. Thus, a court action is
necessary to be filed within four (4) years from the non-compliance of the condition violated. As regards
the ground of estoppel, the donor, Basilisa, cannot invoke the violation of the provision on the prohibition
to encumber the subject property as a basis to revoke the donation thereof inasmuch as she
acknowledged the validity of the mortgage executed by the donee, Consolacion Austria, when the said
donor asked respondent Domingo Comia to redeem the same. Thereafter, the donor, Basilisa likewise
asked respondent Florentino Lumubos and the petitioner herein to redeem the same. 20 Those acts
implied that the donees have the right of control and naked title of ownership over the property
considering that the donor, Basilisa condoned and acknowledged the validity of the mortgage executed by
one of the donees, Consolacion Austria.
Anent the second issue, the petitioner asserts that the action, against the petitioner, for annulment of
TCT No. T-10434 and other relevant documents, for reconveyance and damages, filed by the respondents
on September 21, 1983 on the ground of fraud and/or implied trust has already prescribed. The sale
happened on February 6, 1979 and its registration was made on February 8, 1979 when TCT No. RT-4036
in the name of the donor was cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. T-10434 in the name of the petitioner
was issued. Thus, more than four (4) years have passed since the sale of the subject real estate property
was registered and the said new title thereto was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that an
action for reconveyance of property on the ground of alleged fraud must be filed within four (4) years
4/6
11/12/2019 G.R. No. 106755 February 1, 2002 - APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 2002 - PHILIPPIN…
G.R. No. 147328 February 20, 2002 - SPS. ANTON
and EILEEN LIM v. UNI-TAN MARKETING CORP.
A.M. No. P-01-1486 February 21, 2002 - JUDGE
LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA v. HON. LEOPOLDO V.
CAÑETE, ET AL.
G.R. No. 138231 February 21, 2002 - GREGORIO R.
CASTILLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
A.M. No. P-02-1556 February 22, 2002 - NORMA
SANTOS v. JOYCE TRINIDAD A. HERNANDEZ, ET AL.
G.R. No. 149930 February 22, 2002 - SULPICIO
LINES, INC., v. QUINCIANO GULDE
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1517 February 26, 2002 - PURITA
T. LIM v. JUDGE DEMETRIO D. CALIMAG, JR.
G.R. No. 148965 February 26, 2002 - JOSE
"JINGGOY" E. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1331 February 27, 2002 - MAYOR
REYNOLAN T. SALES v. JUDGE MELVYN U. CALVAN
A.M. No. P-00-1384 February 27, 2002 - JUDGE
PASCUAL F. FOJAS, JR. v. GALICANO M. ROLLAN
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1398 February 27, 2002 -
JOSELITO R. ENRIQUEZ v. JUDGE PLACIDO B.
VALLARTA
G.R. No. 111610 February 27, 2002 - ROMEO P.
NAZARENO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 130970 February 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. DENNIS EDEM
G.R. No. 133490 February 27, 2002 - MA.
GWENDOLYN R. BELLEZA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT
G.R. No. 134362 February 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. EMELITO SITCHON
G.R. Nos. 135639 & 135826 February 27, 2002 -
TERMINAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES CORP. v. PHIL.
PORTS AUTHORITY, ET AL.
G.R. No. 137911 February 27, 2002 - AMA
COMPUTER COLLEGE v. JESUS R. FACTORA
G.R. No. 138200 February 27, 2002 - SECRETARY
OF DOTC v. ROBERTO MABALOT
G.R. No. 139794 February 27, 2002 - MARTIN S.
EMIN v. CHMN. CORAZON ALMA G. DE LEON, ET AL.
G.R. No. 140074 February 27, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JOSEPHINE SANTOS
G.R. No. 143781 February 27, 2002 - JOSE
CLAVANO, INC. v. HOUSING AND LAND USE
REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL.
G.R. No. 146741 February 27, 2002 - NATIONAL
BOOKSTORE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. 147379 February 27, 2002 - HEIRS OF
AMBROCIO KIONISALA v. HEIRS OF HONORIO DACUT
A.C. No. 5174 February 28, 2002 - ERNESTO M.
RAMOS v. ATTY. MARIANO A. DAJOYAG, JR.
A.M. No. P-01-1460 February 28, 2002
ESPERANZA L. DE GUZMAN v. NORMA M. BURCE
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1677 February 28, 2002 -
JERUSALINO V. ARAOS v. JUDGE ROSALINA L. LUNA-
PISON
G.R. No. 130506 February 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO R. JAKOSALEM
G.R. No. 141125 February 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. JEFFREY GARCIA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 144422 February 28, 2002 - PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL. v. ALDRIN LICAYAN
G.R. No. 146664 February 28, 2002 - JOHN
ANGCACO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2002februarydecisions.php?id=150
from the discovery of fraud which is from the date of registration of the deed of sale on February 8,
1979; and that the same prescriptive period also applies to a suit predicated on a trust relationship that
is rooted on fraud of breach of trust.
When one’s property is registered in another’s name without the former’s consent, an implied trust is
created by law in favor of the true owner. Article. 1144 of the New Civil Code provides: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action
accrues:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) Upon a written contract;
(2) Upon an obligation created by law;
(3) Upon a judgment. (n)
Thus, an action for reconveyance of the title to the rightful owner prescribes in ten (10) years from the
issuance of the title. 21 It is only when fraud has been committed that the action will be barred after four
(4) years. 22
However, the four-year prescriptive period is not applicable to the case at bar for the reason that there is
no fraud in this case. The findings of fact of the appellate court which are entitled to great respect, are
devoid of any finding of fraud. The records do not show that the donor, Basilisa, and the petitioner ever
intended to defraud the respondents herein with respect to the sale and ownership of the said property.
On the other hand, the sale was grounded upon their honest but erroneous interpretation of the deed of
donation that it is mortis causa, not inter vivos; and that the donor still had the rights to sell or dispose
of the donated property and to revoke the donation.
There being no fraud in the trust relationship between the donor and the donees including the herein
petitioner, the action for reconveyance prescribes in ten (10) years. Considering that TCT No. T-10434 in
the name of the petitioner and covering the subject property was issued only on February 8, 1979, the
filing of the complaint in the case at bar in 1983 was well within the ten-year prescriptive period.
The Court of Appeals, therefore, committed no reversible error in its appealed Decision.
WHEREFORE, the appealed Decision dated June 30, 1989 of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED. No
pronouncement as to costs. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Quisumbing and Buena, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1. Penned by Associate Justice Santiago M. Kapunan (now Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo J. Francisco and Minerva
Gonzaga-Reyes (former Associate Justices of the Supreme Court); Rollo, pp. 17-24.
2. Third Division.
3. Penned by Judge Rolando D. Diaz; Records, pp. 107-114.
4. Trial Court Records, p. 56.
5. Records, p. 57.
6. Records, p. 114.
7. Rollo, p. 24.
8. Rollo, pp. 21-22.
9. Rollo, pp. 6-7.
10. Gestopa v. Court of Appeals, 342 SCRA 105, 110 (2000) citing Reyes v. Mosqueda, 187
- SCRA 661, 671 (1990).
11. 95 Phil 481, 487 (1954).
12. 98 Phil 68, 70-71 (1955).
13. Supra, Note 11, pp. 487-488.
14. Id., p. 488.
15. Supra, Note 10, p. 111.
16. TSN dated April 10, 1986, pp. 16-17.
17. Atty Viniegra testified: "She said, it was her right to disregard that prohibition but I
reminded her that there was a sort of prohibition in that Kasulatan to the effect that
nobody could dispose that but she insisted that it was her prerogative to dispose that the
way she wanted to specially at the time she needs money . . ." ; TSN dated March 1, 1985,
p. 98.
18. Alejandro v. Geraldez, 78 SCRA 245, 261 (1977).
19. Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the instance of the donor, when the donee
fails to comply with any of the conditions which the former imposed upon the latter.
In this case, the property donated shall be returned to the donor, the alienation made by
the donee and the mortagages imposed thereon by him being void, with the limitations
established, with regard to third persons, by the Mortgage Law and the Land Registration
laws.
This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncompliance with the condition, may
be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be exercised against the donee’s heirs.
(647a)
20. TSN dated January 23, 1986, pp. 27-32.
5/6
11/12/2019 G.R. No. 106755 February 1, 2002 - APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. : FEBRUARY 2002 - PHILIPPIN…

21. A. TOLENTINO, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, VOL. 4. Art. 1144 of the Civil Code (1991) citing Cadets v. Benedicto 158
SCRA 575 (1989); Heirs of Bartolome Infants v. Court of Appeals 162 SCRA 431 (1988).

22. Id. citing Damanon v. Butuan City Rural Bank, 119 SCRA 193 (1982); Marcopper
Mining Corporation v. Garcia, 143 SCRA 178 (1986); Beaterio del Santisimo Rosario de
Molo v. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 459 (1985); Cimafranca v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 147 SCRA 611(1987).

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2002februarydecisions.php?id=150 6/6