You are on page 1of 2

SPS. AGRIPINO GESTOPA and ISABEL SILARIO GESTOPA, petitioners, vs. CA and MERCEDES DANLAG y PILAPIL, respondents.

(Oct 5, 2000 | Quisumbing) Facts: 1. Sps Diego and Catalina Danlag owners of 6 parcels of unregistered land = 3 deeds of donation mortis causa in favor of Mercedes DanlagPilapil = 1st deed: parcels 1&2; 2nd deed: parcel 3; 3rd deed: parcel 4 = ALL DEEDS: reservation of the rights of the donors: a) to amend, cancel or revoke the donation during their lifetime b) to sell, mortgage or encumber the properties donated during the donors lifetime, if deemed necessary 2. Diego, with consent of wife, executed a deed of donation inter vivos covering the above lands + 2 other parcels of land, again in favor of Mercedes, with 2 conditions: a) Danlag spouses shall continue to enjoy the fruits of the land during their lifetime b) donee cannot sell or dispose of the land during the lifetime of the sps, w/o their prior consent/approval 3. Mercedes caused the transfer of the tax declarations to her name and paid the taxes 4. Sps Danlag sold parcels 3&4 to Sps Gestopa 5. Sps Danlag = deed of revocation over the 6 parcels of land in the deed of donation inter vivos 6. @RTC = Mercedes vs Gestopas, Danlags = quieting of title on the parcels of land ALLEGATIONS: a) shes an illegit child of Diego; b) she lived and rendered incalculable beneficial services to Diego and his mother Maura when Maura was still alive c) in recognition of the services she rendered, Diego executed a Deed of Donation conveying to her 6 parcels of land d) she accepted the donation in the same instrument, openly and publicly exercised rights of ownership over the donated properties e) she caused the transfer of the tax declarations to her name f) through machination, intimidation and undue influence, Diego persuaded the husband of Mercedes, Eulalio, to buy 2 of the 6 parcels g) the donation inter vivos was coupled with conditions and since its perfection, she has complied with all of them h) she has not been guilty of any act of ingratitude i) Diego had no legal basis of revoking the donation and then selling to Gestopas OPPOSITION (of Gestopas and Danlags): a) deed of donation was null and void obtained by Mercedes through machinations and undue influence b) assuming it was valid intention was for the donation to take effect upon death of the donor c) donation was void for it left the donor, Diego w/o

property at all 7. RTC: favored Gestopas and Danlags -> reservation clause in all the DoDs indicated that Diego did not make any donation, that the purchase of Mercedes of the 2 parcels strengthened this; Mercedes failed to rebut allegations of ingratitude against Diego and Mercedes committed fraud and machination sin preparing all the DoDs w/o explaining to Diego the contents a) donations mortis causa&inter vivos REVOKED = no legal effect and force of law b) Diego = absolute and exclusive owner of the 6 parcels c) deeds of sale to sps Gestopa by Diego = valid and enforceable d) all tax declarations issued in name of Mercedes = CANCELLED and restoring all tax declarations in favor of Danlags e) Contract of sale vendor, sps Diego or their estate, have alternative remedies of demanding the balance of the agreed price with legal interest, or rescission of the Contract of Sale 8. CA: reversed RTC; favored Mercedes -> reservation by the donor of lifetime usufruct = he transferred to Mercedes the ownership over the donated properties -> donors right referred to that of merely giving consent -> donor changed his intention by donating inter vivos properties already donated mortis causa -> transfer to Mercedes name of tax declarations pertaining to the donated properties impleied that the donation was inter vivos -> Mercedes did not purchase 2 of the 6 parcels donated to her a) DoD inter vivos NOT revoked = full force and effect b) Revocation of Donation = NULL and VOID = no force and effect c) Mercedes = absolute and exclusive owner of the 6 parcels in the DoD inter vivos d) DoS by Diego to Gestopa sps and DoS to Eulalio = NOT validly executed = NULL and VOID = no force and effect e) Sps Gestopa to reconvey w/in 30days from finality of judgment to Mercedes the parcels of land because they have been fraudulently secured. SC: CA affirmed WON the donor intended to transfer the ownership over the properties upon the execution of the deed? -> read deeds provisions together - the granting clause shows that Diego donated the properties out of love and affection for the donee = mark of DONATION INTER VIVOS - reservation of lifetime usufruct indicates that the donor intended to transfer the naked ownership over the properties. - CA was right in saying that what was the need for the reservation if the donor and his spouse remained the owners of the properties. - donor reserved sufficient properties for his maintenance in accordance with his standing in society, indicating that the donor intended to part with 6 parcels - donee accepted the donation - Alejandro v Geraldez = an acceptance clause if a mark that the donation is inter vivos acceptance is a requirement for donations inter

vivos (Donations mortis cause, being in the for of a will, are NOT required to be accepted by the donees during the donors lifetime. - CA was right that the right to dispose of the properties belonged to donee - donors right to give consent was merely intended to protect his usufructuary interests - Alejandro v Geraldez = a limitation on the right to sell during the donors lifetime implied that ownership had passed to the donees and donation was already effective during the donors lifetime. ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES in the execution of the donation in this case: - demonstrated the real intent of the donor to transfer the ownership over the subject properties upon execution - prior to execution of donation inter vivos, Danlag sps already executed 3 donations mortis causa = Danlag sps were aware of the difference of the 2 types of donations -> if they did not intend to donate inter vivos they would not again donate the 4 lots already donated mortis causa -> Gestopas counter argument that this proposition was erroneous because 6 years after, the spouses changed their intention with deed of revocation is not only disingenuous but also fallacious = they cannot use the deed of revocation to show the sps intent because its validity is one of the issues in this case GESTOPAS aver that Mercedes tax declarations in her name cannot be a basis in determining donors intent because its easy to get tax decs and they are not proof of ownership -SC: unless proven otherwise, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and petitioners did NOT overcome this presumption in the issuance of the tax decs. And CA was correct to say that tax decs were not referred to as proofs of ownership but ONLY as evidence of the intent by the donor to transfer ownership. On the 2 parcels of land bought = CA was correct to observe that it was Mercedes husband, Eulalio, who purchased the 2 parcels. Thus its wrong to say that Mercedes did not believe the donation was inter vivos. - reasonable to infer that the purchase was w/o Mercedes consent, purchase by her husband would make the properties conjugal to her own disadvantage - purchase is against her self-interest = weighs strongly in her favor and gives credence to her claim that her husband was manipulated and unduly influenced to make the purchase in the 1st place WON THE REVOCATION WAS VALID? A valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable, except on account of officiousness, failure by the donee to comply with the charges imposed in the donation, or ingratitude. BUT THE DONOR SPOUSES DID NOT INVOKE ANY OF THESE REASONS IN THE DEED OF REVOCATION! - Mercedes allegedly intensely prohibited the donor to gather coconut trees and she filed an instant petition for quieting of title.

-SC: nothing on record that Mercedes prohibited the donor from gathering and this could hardly be considered an act under Art 765 NCC; nor her filing of the petition especially when she only believed it was her right under the law. Records do not show that the donor spouses instituted any action to revoke the donation under Art 769NCC = Supposed revocation had no legal effect

You might also like