Sunday, March 4, 2012

Lydia Sumipat vs. Brigido Banga (G.R. No. 155810, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 521)


FACTS:
On January 5, 1983, Lauro Sumipat executed a document denominated "DEED OF ABSOLUTE TRANSFER AND/OR QUIT-CLAIM OVER REAL PROPERTIES" (the assailed document) in favor of his illegitimate children (defendants-appellees) covering the three parcels of land (the properties). On the document appears the signature of his wife Placida which indicates that she gave her marital consent thereto. That time, Lauro was already very sick and bedridden; that upon defendant-appellee Lydia’s request, their neighbor Benjamin Rivera lifted the body of Lauro Sumipat whereupon Lydia guided his (Lauro Sumipat’s) hand in affixing his signature on the assailed document which she had brought; that Lydia thereafter left but later returned on the same day and requested Lauro’s unlettered wife Placida to sign on the assailed document, as she did in haste, even without the latter getting a responsive answer to her query on what it was all about.

After Lauro Sumipat’s death on January 30, 1984, his wife Placida and defendants-appellees jointly administered the properties 50% of the produce of which went to plaintiff-appellant. As plaintiff-appellant’s share in the produce of the properties dwindled until she no longer received any and learning that the titles to the properties in question were already transferred/made in favor of the defendants-appellees, she filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of titles, contracts, partition, recovery of ownership now the subject of the present appeal.

Defendant-appellee Lydia disclaims participation in the execution of the assailed document, she claiming to have acquired knowledge of its existence only on January 10, 1983 or five days after its execution when Lauro Sumipat gave the same to her.

The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant-appellees, because it found that the subject properties are conjugal having been acquired during the marriage of Lauro Sumipat and Placida Tabotabo (Placida). However, because Placida failed to question the genuineness and due execution of the deed and even admitted having affixed her signature thereon, the trial court declared that the entirety of the subject properties, and not just Lauro Sumipat’s conjugal share, were validly transferred to the defendants, the petitioners herein.

On appeal, the appellate court held that since Placida was unlettered, the appellees, the petitioners herein, as the parties interested in enforcing the deed, have the burden of proving that the terms thereof were fully explained to her. This they failed to do.

ISSUE:
Whether the questioned deed by its terms or under the surrounding circumstances has validly transferred title to the disputed properties to the petitioners.

HELD:
Art. 749 of the Civil Code states that:

"In order that the donation of the immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.


The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.


If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments."

Title to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee by virtue of a deed of donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and the donor duly notified thereof. The acceptance may be made in the very same instrument of donation. If the acceptance does not appear in the same document, it must be made in another. Where the deed of donation fails to show the acceptance, or where the formal notice of the acceptance, made in a separate instrument, is either not given to the donor or else not noted in the deed of donation and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null and void.20

In this case, the donees’ acceptance of the donation is not manifested either in the deed itself or in a separate document. Hence, the deed as an instrument of donation is patently void.

No comments:

Post a Comment