Apolonia Ocampo vs. Fidela Ocampo (G.R. No. 150707, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 547)

FACTS:
Jose Ocampo and Juana Llander-Ocampo have ten children, including the petitioners and respondents to this case. In the celebration of their marriage, they acquired several properties, all of which are owned in common by their children. However, the residential/commercial lot in Nabua, Camarines Sur is ostensibly owned by Fidela Ocampo, although the latter acknowledges that the same is co-owned by her and her siblings.

Aside from the first complaint that they have filed before the trial court, petitioners also filed a supplemental complaint where they allege that Fidela Ocampo cancelled the first TCT of the lot in Nabua and issued a new one in the form of Deed of Donation Inter Vivos in favor of Belen Ocampo-Barrito and her spouse Vicente Barrito. Both the donor of the donee are notoriously aware that the lot is still under dispute in the petitioners' first complaint, nevertheless, the two still pursued the donation. Petitioners also allege that the transfer of ownership from Fidela to Belen, daughter of another defendant Felicidad, is tainted with fraud, actual and deliberate, to deprive plaintiffs of their legitimate share therein, knowing as they do that the same are a co-ownership of the original parties plaintiffs and defendants herein.

Defendants, on the other hand, allege that Fidela has been the absolute owner of the property since 1949, and that its title is free from all encumbrances and adverse claims. In 1984, Fidela conveyed the property to Belen via a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos and since September 13, 1987, Belen has been the absolute owner of the same property.

In its decision, the Appellate Court said that other than the Acknowledgment of Co-ownership executed by Respondent Fidela Ocampo, no documentary evidence was offered to establish petitioners’ claim of co-ownership. It also said that respondents were able to give clear proof of their ownership of the property: the Transfer Certificate of Title and the corresponding Tax Declaration in the name of Fidela, and later of Belen Ocampo-Barrito.

ISSUE:
Where a deed of donation inter vivos entered in bad faith deprives the heirs of their hereditary shares, is said deed valid?

HELD:
The Petition has no merit.

Belen presented a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos executed on January 13, 1984, between herself as donee and Fidela as donor. This act shows the immediate source of the former’s claim of sole ownership of the property.

A donation as a mode of acquiring ownership results in an effective transfer of title to the property from the donor to the donee. Petitioners stubbornly rely on the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership allegedly executed by Fidela in favor of her siblings. What they overlook is the fact that at the time of the execution of the Acknowledgement -- assuming that its authenticity and due execution were proven -- the property had already been donated to Belen. The Deed of Donation, which is the prior document, is clearly inconsistent with the document relied upon by petitioners. We agree with the RTC’s ratiocination:

"On the claim of plaintiffs that defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo herself made a written acknowledgement for her co-ownership over all the properties disputed with plaintiffs in this case, the same cannot be considered as a declaration against Fidela’s interest since the alleged acknowledgement was written and executed on 24 December 1985 when she was no longer the owner of the property as the year previous, on 13 January 1984, she had already donated all her properties to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, so that, in effect, she had no more properties with which she can have an interest to declare against."