s .

A z u rin
r ra lde v
Yt u
o . 2 21 58
G.R. N 69
y 3 0, 19
Ma
Nature of the Case
Action to annul a notarial deed of donation inter vivos
Dispute covers 10 parcels of land
Ground for annulment is fraudulent misrepresentation
Executed document is for administration of properties not donation
Facts:
Close relationship of Consuelo Azarin and Carmen Yturralde

Baltazara Pedro Gella

Family Physician
Raymundo Yturralde
Azarin
Godmother Elder Sister

Consuelo Carmen
Azurin Yturralde
Uncle
Facts:
Consuelo helped Carmen recover backpay and pension of her
son who died in war
Atty Jose Azurin, working with US Veterans Administration, helped
in expediting the processing of Carmen’s claim.
Dr. Raymundo Azurin attended to Carmen’s medical needs
who suffered stroke
Facts:
Carmen Cipriano
Yturralde Brother was a Yturralde
gambler

Deed of Donation

Donate her Azurins would:

properties • Support Carmen and Cipriano
from the produce of the lands
Consuelo • Construct a house
Azurin • Maintain Carmen’s family
mausoleum
Facts:
When Azurins caused the deed to be registered, they learned
that the Torrens titles were with Mariano Vagilidad and Luz
Manaquit
It appears that Cipriano obtained loan from the latter and secured the
same with the titles.
Mariano and Luz refused to give the title back because the
donation was made by Carmen, not Cipriano.
Facts:
Azurins filed two actions
Petition in the cadastral proceedings to procure delivery of the
titles
Annulment of mortgage which covers the donated properties
The lower court favored the Azurins
Facts:
On appeal, Cipriano contended that he did not know the
contents of the deed he signed and alleged that it was
supposed to be for administration of properties

Cipriano, however, admitted that he and Carmen lived in

house of Azurins, transferred in the house constructed for
them, supported them until death of Carmen, and defrayed
the burial expenses of Carmen
Side Issue:
Whether or not Carmen was capacitated to donate
YES. Carmen was suffering from hemiplegia, paralysis of the
right half of her body. She was bedridden, but otherwise feeling
all right. She could talk coherently, audibly, and properly, could
answer questions sensibly, could express her ideas clearly.
Issues:
Whether or not the plaintiff was defrauded in
signing that deed was for administration and
not a donation

NO
Ruling:
Since the donation was made in a public document specifying
the immovables donated, and the conditions for the donation,
and that acceptance thereof was made in the same deed of
donation, that donation should be given effect
Notarial document is evidence of the facts in clear, unequivocal
manner therein expressed. It has in its favor the presumption of
regularity.
To contradict all these, as plaintiff now seeks to do, there must be
evidence that is "clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant."
Ruling:
Cipriano failed to satisfy the quantum of evidence required:
It is undisputed that plaintiff has been a priest of the Philippine
Independent Church for a long time. He talks and writes Spanish
very well. He knows how to read English.
Judge of the lower court opined that although plaintiff was
already old and a little bit deaf, he was "fairly intelligent to say
the least, and definitely ... not feeble-minded.
Ruling:
If the intention of the Azurins were to palm off donation for
mere administration, they would not have chosen such a time
when not only plaintiff but the latter's nephew, a person also of
mature age, were present. They would not have then exhibited
the document, allowed the execution thereof.
Even if we concede that he knows no English, the very title of
the document must have arrested his attention. The English word
"DONATION" was there. That is the equivalent of the Spanish
word "DONACION", which, of course he understands.
Ruling:
Cipriano joined defendants in the suit against the Vagilidads filed
on December 29, 1956 for the purpose of annulling the mortgage
in favor of the latter in order to give effect to the very donation
now being questioned in plaintiff.