ARANGOTE VS. SPS.
MAGLUNOB AND SALIDO
FACTS
 June 24, 1985 – Esperanza executed a Last Will
and Testament bequeathing the land to Sps.
Arangote, but it was never probated.
 June 9, 1986 – Esperanza executed a notarized
Affidavit. It stated: “I hereby renounce,
relinquish, waive, and quitclaim all my rights,
share, interest, and participation whatsoever in
the subject property unto the said Sps. Ray Mars
Arangote and Elvira Arangote, their heirs,
successors, and assigns including the
improvement found thereon.”
 1987 – Tax Dec. in Esperanza’s name were
cancelled. Tax Dec were issue in the name of
Arangote.
 1989 – Sps. Arangote built a house thereon.
 1993 March 26 – An OCT (Cert. of Land
Ownership) was issued by the Dept. of Agrarian
Reform in the name of Elvira Arangote.
 1994 June 3 – Martin Maglunob, Romeo Salido,
and some hired persons entered the property
and built a hollow block wall behind and in front
of Arangote’s house, which blocked the entrance
to its main door.
Thus, Sps. Arangote filed the instant case for
Quieting of Title, Declaration of Ownership and
Possession, Damages with Preliminary
Injunction, and Issuance of Temporary
Restraining Order against Martin and Romeo.
Arangote claims to have obtained the land from
Esperanza as evidenced by the notarized Affidavit. In
the alternative, should the title be cancelled, she
claims to be entitled to the rights under Art. 448 and
546 of the Civil Code as possessor in good faith.
Martin and Romeo claim that they are co-owners of
the land with their aunt Esperanza.
They alleged that the Sps. Arangote used fraud,
undue influence, and deceit upon Esperanza, who
was already old and illiterate to affix her thumbmark
to the Affidavit dated June 9, 1986. They prayed that
the OCT issued in Arangote’s name be declared null
and void insofar as their 2/3 shares are concerned.
2000 September 12 – RTC court renderd judgement
in favor of Martin and Romeo.
2000 September 23 – Sps. Arangote executed a Deed
of Acceptance (during Esperanza’s lifetime). On
September 26, they filed a Motion for New Trial or
Reconsideration on the ground of newly discovered
evidence consisting of the Deed of Acceptance.
ISSUES
1. What is the nature of the notarized Affidavit?
Donation of an interest
2. WON it was a valid donation – NO
HELD
1. The Affidavit is a pure donation of an interest in
a real property. Thus, it is covered by Article 749
of the Civil Code.
2. It is a void donation, since it did not comply with
the 2nd and 3rd requisites under Art. 749:
1. It must be made in a public instrument ;
2. Must be accepted, which acceptance may be
made either in the same Deed of Donation
or in a separate public instrument; and
3. If the acceptance is made in a separate
instrument, the donor must be notified in an
authentic form, and the same must be noted
in both instruments
The subsequent Deed of Acceptance executed
on Sept. 23, 2000, during Esperanza’s lifetime
did not cure the defect, as it was merely an
afterthought. It was only after the RTC rendered
the decision in favor of Martin and Romeo.
Granting arguendo that the Acceptance will be
considered, still the donation is void since there
is no proof that a formal notice of such
acceptance was received by the donor and noted
in both the Deed of Donation and the separate
instrument embodying the acceptance.