Professional Documents
Culture Documents
that Helen intended to convey to her son David certain parcels of land
located in the Philippines, and to re-affirm the quitclaim she executed which
likewise declared a waiver and renunciation of her rights over the parcels of
land. The language of the deed of quitclaim is clear that Helen merely
contemplated a waiver of her rights, title and interest over the lands in favor
of David, and not a donation. That a donation was far from Helen's mind is
further supported by her deposition which indicated that she was aware that
a donation of the parcels of land was not possible since Philippine law does
not allow such an arrangement. She reasoned that if she really intended to
donate something to David it would have been more convenient if she sold
the property and gave him the proceeds therefrom. It appears that foremost
in Helens mind was the preservation of the Bulacan realty within the
bloodline of Simeon from where they originated, over and above the benefit
that would accrue to David by reason of her renunciation. The element of
animus donandi therefore was missing.
ART. 725
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DAVID REY GUZMAN, et al.
G.R. No. 132964, February 18, 2000, SECOND DIVISION (Bellosillo, J.)
David Rey Guzman, a natural-born American citizen, is the son of
the Simeon Guzman, a naturalized American citizen, and Helen Meyers
Guzman, an American citizen. Simeon died leaving to his sole heirs Helen
and David an estate consisting of several parcels of land in Bulacan. Helen
and David executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of
Simeon Guzman dividing and adjudicating to themselves all the property
belonging to the estate of Simeon.Helen executed a Quitclaim Deed
assigning, transferring and conveying to her son David her undivided 1/2
interest on all the parcels of land subject matter of the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of the Estate of Simeon Guzman. Since the document appeared
not to have been registered, Helen executed another Deed of Quitclaim.
FACTS.
HELD:
Efren Roque alleged 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 and duly notarized. However, the title was only
transferred in the name of respondent 16 years later. 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.
Facts:
Basilisa Comerciant, mom to five children, executed a Deed of Donation to
her five children covered by Transfer Certificate 3268, with an area of 150
square meters. The said document reads as follows:
xxx 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),xxx
The trial court dismissed the complaint of respondent since the donation is
not registered, third parties cannot be bound by it. On appeal, the CA
reversed the decision of the trial court explaining that petitioner was not a
lessee in good faith having had prior knowledge of the donation in favor of
respondent, and that such actual knowledge had the effect of registration
insofar as petitioner was concerned.
HELD.
As to registration.
The existence, albeit unregistered, of the donation in favor of respondent is
undisputed. The trial 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. 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.
Basilia, to their mind, definitely had no plans of revoking the donation. The
document executed thereafter upheld such irrevocability.
Petition denied.
ART. 728
ART. 729
APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.
and death of the spouses. It also contained a clause which states that while
the spouses are alive, they shall continue to govern the properties covered
by the deed1. After Gabinos death in 1962, Severa executed another deed of
donation wherein she conveyed to Andrea Diaz her one -half share in Lot
2377-A, which one-half share is identified as Lot 2377-A-1, on condition that
Andrea Diaz would bear the funeral expenses to be incurred after the donor's
death. She died in 1964. It should be noted that the other one-half share in
Lot 2377-A or Lot No. 2377-A-2 was previously adjudicated to Angel Diaz
because he defrayed the funeral expenses on the occasion of the
death of Gabino Diaz.
In 1970, Andrea sued her brother Angel for the partition of Lots
No. 2377-A and 2502. Teodorico Alejandro, the surviving spouse of Olimpia
Diaz, and their children intervened in the said case. They claimed one-third
of Lot No. 2502. Angel Diaz alleged in his answer that he had been
occupying his share of Lot No. 2502 "for more than twenty years". The
intervenors claimed that the 1949 donation was a void mortis causa
disposition.
The lower court held that the said deed of donation was a
donation mortis causa because the ownership of the properties donated
did not pass to the donees during the donors' lifetime but was transmitted
to the donees only "upon the death of the donors". However, it sustained the
division of Lot No. 2502 into two equal parts between Angel Diaz and
Andrea Diaz on the theory that the said deed of donation was
effective "as an extrajudicial partition among the parents and their
children''
In Gestopa v. Court of Appeals, the 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.
Issue
WON the deed covering lot no. 2502 in 1949 was a donation mortis causa or
inter vivos
Decision
The donation was inter vivos because it took effect during the
lifetime of the donors. It was already effective during the donors' lifetime, or
immediately after the execution of the deed, as shown by the granting,
habendum2 and warranty clause of the deed. In that clause it is stated
that, in consideration of the affection and esteem of the donors for the
donees and the valuable services rendered by the donees to the donors, the
latter, by means of the deed of donation, wholeheartedly transfer and
unconditionally give to the donees the lots mentioned and described in the
early part of the deed, free from any kind of liens and debts. The acceptance
clause is another indication that the donation is inter vivos. Donations mortis
causa, being in the form of a will, are never accepted by the donees during
the donors' lifetime. Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter vivos.
1 The clause states patuloy ang aming pamamahala, karapatan, at pagkamay-ari sa mga
Facts
nasabing pag-aari na sinasaysay sa unahan nito na pag-aari namin; ngunit sakaling kami ay
bawian rig buhay ng Panginoong Dios at mamatay na ang mga karapatan at pagkamay-ari ng
bawa't Pinagkalooban (Donatarios) sa bawa't pagaari na nauukol sa bawa't isa ay may lubos na
kapangyarihan."
2 The part of a deed or conveyance that states the estate or quantity of interest to be granted,
e.g., the term of a lease. (oxford dictionaries)
the donated properties during the donors lifetime but if the sale is necessary
to defray the expenses and support of the donors, then the sale is valid.
Margarita David. According to the terms of the deed, the most essential
elements of ownership the right to dispose of the donated properties and
the right to enjoy the products, profits, possession remained with
Margarita David during her lifetime, and would accrue to the donees only
after Margarita David's death.
ART. 732
JARABINI G. DEL ROSARIO, PETITIONER, VS. ASUNCION G. FERRER
G.R. No. 187056, September 20, 2010, SECOND DIVISION, (ABAD, J.)
The spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales executed a document
entitled "Donation Mortis Causa" in favor of their two children, Asuncion and
Emiliano, and their granddaughter, Jarabini (daughter of their predeceased
son, Zoilo) covering the spouses' 126-square meter lot and the house on it in
Pandacan, Manila in equal shares. The deed of donation was denominated
as Donation Mortis Causa and shall be irrevocable. Guadalupe, the donor
wife, died in September 1968. A few months later or on December 19, 1968,
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. Jarabini filed a "petition for the probate of deed of
donation mortis causa" before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Asuncion
opposed the petition, invoking his father Leopoldo's assignment. After trial,
the RTC found that the donation was in fact one made inter vivos due to its
irrevocability. On appeal in CA, the decision was reversed.
Facts: The full text of the deed of donation was presented before the court:
"Na and naturang "donor," Margarita David y Puato, alang-alang
sa malaki niyang pagtigin, pagligap at pagmamahal sa mga nabanguit na
"donees" Narcisa de la Fuente at Priscila de la Fuente, sa pamamagitan
nang kasulatang ito, malayang ibinigay at ipinagkakaloob sa mga naturang
Narcisa de la Fuente at Priscila de la Fuente, at sa kanilang mga
tagapagmana, "albacea" at "Administradores", sa habang panahon, ang
kanyang mga titulo, interes at participacion sa mag sumusunod na ari-arian
na pawang malines sa lahat nang mga pananagutan:
HELD:
That the document in question in this case was captioned "Donation Mortis
Causa" is not controlling. This Court has held that, if a donation by its terms
is inter vivos, this character is not altered by the fact that the donor styles
it mortis causa.
In Austria-Magat v. Court of Appeals, 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 the following characteristics:
.
The donors in this case of course reserved the "right, ownership, possession,
and administration of the property" and made the donation operative upon
their death. But this Court has consistently held that such reservation
(reddendum) in the context of an irrevocable donation simply means that the
donors parted with their naked title, maintaining only beneficial ownership of
the donated property while they lived.
Notably, the three donees signed their acceptance of the donation, which
acceptance the deed required. This Court has held that an acceptance
clause indicates that the donation is inter vivos, since acceptance is a
requirement only for such kind of donations. Donations mortis causa, being
in the form of a will, need not be accepted by the donee during the donor's
lifetime.
From all the foregoing, the Court concluded that the donation in question is,
in fact, a donation mortis causa, because the combined effect of the
circumstances surrounding the execution of the deed of donation and of the
above-quoted clauses thereof could not have taken effect before the death of
Since the donation in this case was one made inter vivos, it was immediately
operative and 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.
ART. 733
C-J YULO & SONS, INC. v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN PABLO,
INC.
G.R. No. 133705, March 31, 2005, THIRD DIVISION (Garcia, J.)
C-J Yulo & Sons donated to Roman Catholic Bishop of San Pablo
a parcel of land at Calamba, Laguna with an area of 41,117 sq.m. The deed
of donation which also bears the acceptance of the donee recites the
considerations and the conditions attached wherein the land shall be used
for the construction of a home for the aged and infirm, regardless of religion
or creed, but preferably those coming from Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna;
that a Green Belt shall be established and maintained by the and the Green
Belt shall be devoted by Donee with the help of such residents of the home
as are able, to the raising of agricultural crops for the consumption of the
residents of the home, and of such other crops that may be sold to defray the
cost of running the home and feeding its residents; and except with prior
written consent of the Donor or its successor, the Donee shall not use the
land except for the purpose as provided above, nor sell or dispose the land
for any reason whatsoever, nor convey any portion of the same except in
lease for commercial use as provided above, otherwise the said land with all
real improvements thereon shall revert in trust to the Donor for prompt
disposition in favor of some other charitable organization that Donor may
deem best suited to the care of the aged.
In Silim, supra, this Court ruled that such exchange does not
constitute breach of the terms and conditions of the donation. We see no
reason for the Court to think otherwise in this case. To insist that the home
for the aged and infirm be constructed on the donated property, if the
industrialization indeed pushes through, defies rhyme and reason. Any act by
the donor to prevent the donee from ultimately achieving the purpose for
which the donation was intended would constitute bad faith, which the Court
will not tolerate.
ISSUE:
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and DR. BENITO TUMAMAO v. HEIRS OF
RUFINO DULAY
FACTS.
On August 3, 1981, Spouses Ignacia and Rufino Dulay Sr.
executed a deed of donation over a portion of their property in favor of the
Ministry of Education and Culture intended for school purposes. However,
the property was not used for school purposes and remained idle. Sometime
in 1988, DECS started the construction of the Rizal National High
School building on a parcel of land which was about 2 kilometers away from
the land donated by the spouses Dulay. The spouses then requested that
the property be returned to them considering that it was never used for
almost 13 years. The Barangay Council of Rizal issued a Resolution,
recognizing the right of the donors to redeem the subject parcel of land,
resolving that the school no longer needed the donated land. Rufino Dulay
HELD:
YES. In the case at bar, the Court holds that the prohibition in the
deed of donation against the alienation of the property for an entire century,
being an unreasonable emasculation and denial of an integral attribute of
ownership, should be declared as an illegal or impossible condition within the
contemplation of Article 727 of the Civil Code. Consequently, as specifically
stated in said statutory provision, such condition shall be considered as not
imposed. No reliance may accordingly be placed on said prohibitory
paragraph in the deed of donation. The net result is that, absent said
proscription, the deed of sale supposedly constitutive of the cause of action
for the nullification of the deed of donation is not in truth violative of the latter,
hence, for lack of cause of action, the case for private respondents must fail.
Sr. passed away; his heirs sought the help of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
requesting the approval of the aforesaid Resolution but was denied.
FACTS
ISSUE. WON the respondents' right to seek the revocation of the deed of
donation is already barred by prescription and laches.
HELD.
NO. The Court rejected the contention of the OSG that
respondents cause of action is already barred by prescription under Article
764 of the New Civil Code, or four years from the non-compliance with the
condition in the deed of donation. Since such failure to comply with the
condition of utilizing the property for school purposes became manifest
sometime in 1988 when the DECS utilized another property for the
construction of the school building, the four-year prescriptive period did not
commence on such date. Petitioner was given more than enough time to
comply with the condition, and it cannot be allowed to use this fact to its
advantage. It must be stressed that the donation is onerous because the
DECS, as donee, was burdened with the obligation to utilize the land
donated for school purposes. Under Article 733 of the New Civil Code, a
donation with an onerous cause is essentially a contract and is thus
governed by the rules on contract.
Gregorio de Mesa accepted the donation and with his wife, the other
donee, entered into possession of the land donated, even in the lifetime of
the donor Placida and her husband Regalado. De Mesa also made the
declaration of ownership for the assessment in June of that year and paid
the land tax. Thereafter, Placida died and her body was buried and de Mesa
fulfilled the obligation conditioned in the donation by paying the expenses
occasioned by her death and burial.
Plaintiff Bonifacio Manalo, as administratix of the estate of the
deceased Placida, filed a complaint against de Mesa. The court ruled in favor
of the defendant. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: WON the said donation is null and void because it was not made in a
public instrument in accordance with the provisions of article 633 of the Civil
Code, and that it was recorded in a private document
RULING: NO.
"When two persons advanced in years, being entirely alone and
requiring the care of younger people, enter into a contract whereby it is
agreed that, in consideration of such care during the lifetime of the former,
they transferred their real estate to the persons thus caring for them, such a
contract does not constitute a donacion remuneratoria but a donacion con
causa onerosa, and is governed by the law of contracts and not that of
donation." (Carlos vs. Ramil)
There can be no doubt that the donation in question was made for a
valuable consideration, since the donors made it conditional upon the
donees' bearing the expenses that might be occasioned by the death and
burial of the donor Placida Manalo, a condition and obligation which the
donee Gregorio de Mesa carried out in his own behalf and for his wife
Leoncia Manalo; therefore in order to determine whether or not said donation
is valid and effective it should be sufficient to demonstrate that, as a contract,
it embraces the conditions the law requires and is valid and effective,
although not recorded in a public instrument.
Under article 1278 of the Civil Code, contracts are binding when
entered in to between the parties, whatever may be the form in which
they may have been executed, provided the essential conditions
required for their validity exist, as set forth in article 1261 of the same
code.
favor of the foundation, in a document entitled "Revival of Donation Intervivos" subject to terms and conditions3.
On September 23, 1980, herein petitioners, who claim to be the
children and only heirs of the late Prudencio de Luna who died on August 18,
1980, filed a complaint with the RTC of Quezon alleging that the terms and
conditions of the donation were not complied with by the foundation. Among
others, it prayed for the cancellation of the donation and the reversion of the
donated land to the heirs.
The RTC dismissed the complaint for the reason that under Article
764 of the New Civil Code, actions to revoke a donation on the ground of
non-compliance with any of the conditions of the donation shall prescribe in
four years counted from such non-compliance. The complaint herein being
filed September 23, 1980 is 5 months short for it has already prescribed on
April 9, 1980.
Issue
WON the lower court erred in dismissing the complaint of the petitioners
Held
Yes, the lower court erred in appreciating the nature of the
donation. It is not disputed by parties, that the donation subject of this case is
one with an onerous cause. Under Art.733 of the NCC, Donations with an
onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on contracts, and
remuneratory donations by the provisions of the present Title as regards that
portion which exceeds the value of the burden imposed. It is true that under
Article 764 of the New Civil Code, actions for the revocation of a donation
must be brought within four (4) years from the non-compliance of the
conditions of the donation. However, that said article does not apply to
onerous donations in view of the specific provision of Article 733 providing
that onerous donations are governed by the rules on contracts. In the light of
the above, the rules on contracts and the general rules on prescription and
not the rules on donations are applicable in the case at bar.
Under Art. 1036 of the NCC, the parties to a contract have the
right "to establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they
may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy." Paragraph 11 of the "Revival of
Donation Intervivos, has provided that "violation of any of the conditions
(herein) shall cause the automatic reversion of the donated area to the
donor, his heirs, x x x, without the need of executing any other document for
3 That the foundation is to construct, at its own expense, a chapel to be named St. Veronica
which is to be finished by at least 70% after 3 years. There was also a provision for automatic
reversion where in such case that the done fails to comply with its obligation, the land shall
automatically revert to the donor or his heirs.
that purpose and without obligation on the part of the DONOR". Said
stipulation not being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy, is valid and binding upon the foundation who voluntarily
consented thereto.
ART. 744
Lagazo v. Cabanlit
Facts:
Petitioner filed an action seeking to recover from defendant a parcel of land
which the former claims to have acquired from his grandmother by donation.
Respondent on the other hand, put up the defense that when the alleged
donation was executed, he had already acquired the property by a Deed of
Assignment (allegedly executed before the Deed of Donation to Plaintiff)
from a transferee (the former agent) of petitioners grandmother. Defendant
also claims that petitioner failed to accept the donation whether in the same
deed of donation or in a separate instrument rendering the donation null and
void. Petitioner defends that the donation in any case was onerous as he
wsd the one who paid the lands amortization.
Issue:
Issue: Can Eugenio be declared the owner of the donated lot in dispute?
Whether or not the donation is onerous.
Held: Yes.
Held:
Under article 1473 of the Civil Code, the property goes to the vendee who
first records his title in the registry of property. If the sale is not recorded by
either vendee, the property goes to the one who first takes possession of its
in good, faith, and in the absence of both record and possession, to the one
who present oldest title, provided there is good faith.
No.
We rule that the donation was simple, not onerous. Even conceding that
petitioner's full payment of the purchase price of the lot might have been a
burden to him, such payment was not however imposed by the donor as a
condition for the donation. A simple or pure donation is one whose cause is
pure liberality, while an onerous donation is one which is subject to burdens,
charges or future services equal to or more in value than the thing donated.
Article 733 of the Civil Code, donations with an onerous cause shall be
governed by the rules on contracts; hence, the formalities required for a valid
simple donation are not applicable.
The supreme court of Spain has frequently held that inscription in the registry
of property gives no preference of priority where the person relying on the
inscription had full notice beforehand of the adverse claim.
"although article 1473, in its second paragraph, creates a preference for the
title of ownership of realty first registered, this provision must be understood
as being based always upon the good faith required in the first paragraph
thereof, and it cannot be conceived that the legislator had intended to do
away with, or to sanction, bad faith by requiring compliance with a mere
formality (the act of registration) which does not always control even when
third persons are involved."
It clearly appears that Felix Cagaoan had full notice of the plaintiff's claim to
the land before he had his deed of gift recorded with the register of deeds.
Under the decisions above cited he was therefore not a third person within
the meaning of article 34 of the Mortgage Law, and his position was,
consequently, in now wise improved by the inscription of his document. The
plaintiff Eugenio Cagaoan having first taken possession in good faith must
therefore be considered to have the better right to the land in question.
ART. 749
The payments even seem to have been made pursuant to the power of
attorney executed by Catalina Reyes in favor of petitioner, her grandson,
authorizing him to execute acts necessary for the fulfillment of her
obligations.
When respondent Leon Silim saw, to his surprise, that Vice-Mayor Wilfredo
Palma was constructing a house on the donated land. He filed a Complaint
for Revocation and Cancellation of Conditional Donation, Annulment of Deed
of Exchange and Recovery of Possession and Ownership of Real Property
with damages against Vice Mayor Wilfredo Palma, Teresita Palma, District
Supervisor Buendia and the BPS before the Regional Trial Court but it was
dismissed. On appeal in CA, it was declared null and void.
ISSUE: Did CA err in holding that the donation is void for having no valid
acceptance?
HELD: YES
We hold that there was a valid acceptance of the donation.
ISSUE:
ART.749...
HELD:
YES. In the case of the subsequent adoption of a minor by one
who had previously donated some or all of his properties to another, the
donor may sue for the annulment or reduction of the donation within 4 years
from the date of adoption, if the donation impairs the legitime of the adopted,
taking into account the whole estate of the donor at the time of the adoption
of the child. Of course, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff-donor, who must
allege and establish the requirements prescribed by law, on the basis of
which annulment or reduction of the donation can be adjudged.
Art.764
FACTS.
Petitioner and Serafin Jaranilla are co-owners of a parcel of land
located in Brgy. Lublub, Dumangas, Iloilo. On September 16, 1981, the coowners donated the lot to respondent Brgy. Lublub subject to the following
conditions:
(a) That the area donated shall be for the purpose of
constructing and establishing public plaza, sports
complex, public market, health centers and the like
for the use of the Barangay of Lublub x x x which
area shall be hereinafter be known as DON
VENANCIO DOLAR PLAZA and shall be so
designated in a proper landmark;
(b) That the construction and development of the area
above-described shall be initiated and completed
within five (5) years from the execution of this Deed
of Donation and should the same be not made or
completed then this Deed of Donation shall have no
force and effect whatsoever and the ownership of
the above-described property will revert back to the
DONORS including all or any unfinished
improvement the DONEE might have placed or
constructed;
(c) That should the use of the area be converted to
uses other than herein stipulated, then this DEED
OF DONATION shall be deemed revoked and the
ownership shall revert back to the DONORS x x x
Art. 765
SPOUSES ROMULO AND SALLY EDUARTE, PETITIONERS, VS. THE
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEDRO CALAPINE
(SUBSTITUTED BY ALEXANDER CALAPINE AND ARTEMIS CALAPINE,
RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 105944, February 09, 1996, THIRD DIVISION, FRANCISCO, J.
Facts
On April 26, 1984, Pedro Calapine executed a deed entitled
Pagbibigay-Pala (Donacion Inter-Vivos) ceding one-half portion of his
property in San Pablo City to his niece Helen S. Doria. Subsequently, On
July 26, 1984, the rest of the property was ceded by the petitioner unto
Helen S. Doria the whole of the parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-2129.
On February 26, 1986, Helen S. Doria donated a portion of 157 square
meters of the parcel of land to the Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc.
and sold another 700 sqm. to Sps. Eduarte on March 1988.
Sps. Eduarte now argue that Art. 765 is not applicable in the case
herein for the acts of ingratitude referred to therein pertain to offenses
committed by the donee against the person or property of the donor.
Petitioners argue that as the offense imputed to herein donee Helen Doria falsification of a public document - is neither a crime against the person nor
property of the donor but is a crime against public interest under the Revised
Penal Code, the same is not a ground for revocation.
Issue
10
WON Art. 765 is not applicable for the reason that the offense
committed by the donee is falsification of a public document, a crime
against public interest under the RPC.
of the donor despite the fact that they are classified as crimes against
personal liberty and security under the RPC.
*the court nevertheless ruled that the Sps. Eduarte are buyers in
good faith. Petitioners purchased the subject property from Helen Doria, the
same was already covered by TCT No. T-23205 under the latters name. And
although Helen Dorias title was fraudulently secured, such fact cannot
prejudice the rights of herein petitioners absent any showing that they had
any knowledge or participation in such irregularity. Thus, they cannot be
obliged to look beyond the certificate of title which appeared to be valid on its
face and sans any annotation or notice of private respondents adverse
claim. Contrary therefore to the conclusion of respondent Court, petitioners
are purchasers in good faith and for value as they bought the disputed
property without notice that some other person has a right or interest in such
property, and paid a full price for the same at the time of the purchase or
before they had notice of the claim or interest of some other person in the
property. This is so notwithstanding their knowledge of the occupants over
the property since the occupants never posed adverse claims, the spouses
are not required by law to look beyond the TCT of Doria. To rule otherwise
would be contrary to the efficacy and conclusiveness of the Torrens Title.
Held
No, Art. 765 is applicable. In Tolentinos commentaries and
jurisprudence on the Civil code which was cited by the Sps. Eduarte (but
obviously cited it incompletely for it would run contrary to their argument) "Offense Against Donor. All crimes which offend the donor show ingratitude
and are causes for revocation. There is no doubt, therefore, that the donee
who commits adultery with the wife of the donor, gives cause for revocation
by reason of ingratitude. The crimes against the person of the donor would
include not only homicide and physical injuries, but also illegal detention,
threats, and coercion; those against honor include offenses against chastity;
and those against the property, include robbery, theft, usurpation, swindling,
arson, damages, etc. [Manresa 175-176]."
Obviously, the first sentence was deleted by petitioners because it
totally controverts their contention. As noted in the aforecited opinion "all
crimes which offend the donor show ingratitude and are causes for
revocation." Petitioners attempt to categorize the offenses according to their
classification under the RPC is therefore unwarranted considering that illegal
detention, threats and coercion are considered as crimes against the person
11