ABOBON V.

ABOBON
Aug. 15, 2012 | Villarama Jr., J.
Form of Donations
DAP
DOCTRINE: When the accused fails to show complete impairment or loss of intelligence, the Court
recognizes at most a mitigating circumstance and not an exempting circumstance under the Revised
Penal Code.
CASE SUMMARY: Wilson Antonio Jr. claims the insanity defense due to his condition as a psychotic, but
as his mental state cannot be proven during or immediately before the time of the crime, he can only
avail of insanity as a mitigating and not an exempting circumstance.
FACTS:
Felicitas and Gelima Abobon aver that they are the registered owners of a parcel of unirrigated
riceland in Poblacion, Labrador, Pangasinan. At the time, they allowed Numeriano, the first cousin, to use
the land out of benevolence and they needed the land for their own use now. However Numeriano refused
as he claims to be the owner of the land, that he inherited it from his parents, and they have been
continuously, publicly, and adversely possessed the land for more than 55 years. He claims that his
grandfather Emilio Abobon donated the land to his father via donation propter nuptiasand he inherited
the land as Jose, his brother, had already received an inheritance. The MCTC found in favor of the
respondents Felicitas and Gelima as the property in the donation propter nuptias was different and was
not registered under the Mortgage Law, his father did not sign and accept the donation, and that
the donation was invalidated when Emilio sold the land to Leodegario with the agreement of
petitioners parents thus dissolving the donation, and after a series of exchanges, the land went
to the private respondents by extrajudicial settlement after Leodegarios death. The RTC and the
CA affirmed the decision of the MCTC.
ISSUE: WON the CA erred in ruling that the respondents are the owners of the land in question.
RULING:

The respondents, having possession of the Torrens title, therefore have preferential right over the
land due to the principle of indefeasiblity of the land title. The owners have the right to enjoy and
dispose of a thing and they may use any reasonable force to repel or prevent physical invasion or
usurpation.
To assail the value of the TCT he has to bring a direct attack against its validity via an action for
that purpose and not a collateral attack in this case, which is disallowed in PD 1529
An action for recovery of possession of realty can only determine provisional recovery of
possession and would not be a bar to action involving the actual ownership.
The land he claims to own has different boundaries from the land that belongs to the respondents.
The award of moral damages is removed along with exemplary damages and attorneys fees as the
allegations of entitlement are insufficient to warrant the same. For the attorneys fees, the lack of
factual and legal basis to their award warrant their removal.

DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on May 16, 2002 by the
Court of Appeals, with the MODIFICATION that the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages and
attorneys fees are DELETED. The petitioner shall pay the costs of suit. SO ORDERED.