Republic vs. Guzman

90 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDRepublic vs. Guzman

G.R.No.132964.February18,2000.*

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs.DAVIDREY GUZMAN, represented by his AttorneyinFact,LOLITAG.ABELA, and theREGISTEROFDEEDSOFBULACAN,MEYCAUAYANBRANCH,respondents.

Civil Law; Property; Donations; Three Essential Elements of aDonation.There are three (3) essential elements of a donation:(a)thereductionofthepatrimonyofthedonor;(b)theincreaseinthe patrimony of the donee; and, (c) the intent to do an act ofliberality or animus donandi. When applied to a donation of animmovableproperty, the lawfurtherrequiresthatthedonationbemadeinapublicdocumentandthatthereshouldbeanacceptancethereofmade in thesamedeedofdonationor inaseparatepublicdocument. In cases where the acceptance is made in a separateinstrument,itismandatedthatthedonorshouldbenotifiedthereofinanauthenticform,tobenotedinbothinstruments.

91

VOL.326,FEBRUARY18,2000 91

Republic vs. Guzman

Same; Same; Same; When the deed of donation is recorded inthe registry of property the document that evidences the acceptanceshould also be recorded.In Santos v. Robledo we emphasizedthat when the deed of donation is recorded in the registry ofproperty thedocument thatevidences theacceptanceif thishasnotbeenmadeinthedeedofgiftshouldalsoberecorded.Andinoneorbothdocuments,as the casemaybe, thenotificationof theacceptanceasformallymadetothedonorordonorsshouldbedulysetforth.Wherethedeedofdonationfailstoshowtheacceptance,or where the formal notice of the acceptance made in a separateinstrumentiseithernotgiventothedonororelsenotedinthedeedof donation, and in the separate acceptance, the donation is nullandvoid.

Same; Same; Same; It is wellsettled that if the notification andnotation are not complied with, the donation is void.Theserequisites, definitely prescribed by law, have not been compliedwith,andnoproofofcomplianceappearsintherecord.Thetwo(2)quitclaim deeds set out the conveyance of the parcels of land byHeleninfavorofDavidbutitsacceptancebyDaviddoesnotappearin the deeds, nor in the Special Power of Attorney. Further, therecordsrevealnoother instrument thatevidencessuchacceptanceandnoticethereoftothedonorinanauthenticmanner.It iswell

settled that if the notification andnotation are not compliedwith,thedonationisvoid.Therefore,theprovisionsofthelawnothavingbeencompliedwith,therewasnoeffectiveconveyanceoftheparcelsoflandbywayofdonationinter vivos.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourtofAppeals.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.The Solicitor Generalforpetitioner.Bocobo, Rondain, Mendiola, Cruz & Formoso forprivate

respondent.

92


BELLOSILLO,J.:

The REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES seeks thenullification of the5March1998Decision of theCourt ofAppeals

1whichaffirmedthedismissalbytheRegionalTrial

Court,Br.77,Malolos,Bulacan,ofthepetitionforescheatfiledbytheGovernment.

2

DavidReyGuzman,anaturalbornAmericancitizen,isthe son of the spouses Simeon Guzman,

3 a naturalized

Americancitizen,andHelenMeyersGuzman,anAmericancitizen.In1968SimeondiedleavingtohissoleheirsHelenand David an estate consisting of several parcels of landlocatedinBagbaguin,Sta.Maria,Bulacan,coveredbyTCTNos.T146837(M),T146839(M),T146840(M),T146841(M),T146842(M),T120254(M)andT120257(M).

On29December1970HelenandDavidexecutedaDeedof Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of Simeon Guzmandividing and adjudicating to themselves all the propertybelonging to the estate of Simeon. The document ofextrajudicialsettlementwasregistered intheOfficeof theRegister of Deeds on 8 December 1971. The taxes duethereon were paid through their attorneysinfact, Attys.JuanL.AustriaandLolitaG.Abela,andtheparcelsoflandwere accordingly registered in the name ofHelenMeyersGuzmanandDavidReyGuzmaninundividedequalshares.

On10December1981HelenexecutedaQuitclaim Deedassigning,transferringandconveyingtohersonDavidherundivided onehalf (1/2) interest onall theparcels of landsubjectmatteroftheDeed of Extrajudicial Settlement of theEstate of Simeon Guzman.Sincethedocumentappearednotto have been registered, upon advice of Atty. Lolita G.Abela, Helen executed another document, a Deed ofQuitclaim,on9

_________________

1 Decision penned by Justice Emeterio C. Cui, concurred in byJusticeRamonU.Mabutas,Jr.andJusticeHilarionL.Aquino.

2DecisionpennedbyJudgeAuroraSantiagoLagman.3ReferredtoalternativelyasSimeondeGuzmaninthepleadings.

93

VOL.326,FEBRUARY18,2000 93Republic vs. Guzman

August1989confirmingtheearlierdeedofquitclaimaswellas modifying the document to encompass all her otherpropertyinthePhilippines.

4

On18October1989DavidexecutedaSpecial Power ofAttorneywhereheacknowledgedthathebecametheownerof the parcels of land subject of the Deed of QuitclaimexecutedbyHelenon9August1989andempoweringAtty.LolitaG.Abelatosellorotherwisedisposeofthelots.On1February 1990 Atty. Lolita G. Abela, upon instruction ofHelen, paid donors taxes to facilitate the registry of theparcelsoflandinthenameofDavid.

On16March1994acertainAtty.MarioA.Batongbacalwrote the Office of the Solicitor General and furnished itwithdocumentsshowingthatDavidsownershipoftheonehalf(1/2)oftheestateofSimeonGuzmanwasdefective.Onthebasisthereof,theGovernmentfiledbeforetheRegionalTrial Court of Malolos Bulacan a Petition for Escheatprayingthatonehalf(1/2)ofDavidsinterestineachofthesubjectparcelsoflandbeforfeitedinitsfavor.On9August1994DavidReyGuzmanrespondedwithaprayerthatthepetitionbedismissed.

On 11 July 1995 the trial court dismissed the petitionholding that the two (2) deeds of quitclaim executed byHelenMeyersGuzmanhadnolegalforceandeffectsothattheownershipofthepropertysubjectthereofremainedwithher.

5

TheGovernmentappealed6 thedismissalof thepetition

buttheappellatecourtaffirmedthecourta quo.Petitioner anchors its argument on Art. XII of the

Constitutionwhichprovides

Sec.7.Saveincasesofhereditarysuccession,noprivatelandsshallbetransferredorconveyedexcepttoindividuals,corpo

_________________

4 This deed was denominated as Deed of Quitclaim to be differentiatedfromthefirstonecaptionedasQuitclaim Deed

5RTCDecision,p.5.6Appealinstitutedon31May1996.

94


rations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of thepublicdomain.

Sec.8.NotwithstandingtheprovisionsofSection7ofthisArticle,anaturalborncitizenofthePhilippineswhohaslosthisPhilippinecitizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject tolimitationsprovidedbylaw.

Thusasarule,onlyaFilipinocitizencanacquireprivatelands in the Philippines. The only instances when aforeignercanacquireprivatelandsinthePhilippinesarebyhereditarysuccessionandifhewasformerlyanaturalbornFilipino citizen who lost his Philippine citizenship.Petitioner therefore contends that the acquisition of theparcels of land byDavid does not fall under any of theseexceptions.ItassertsthatDavidbeinganAmericancitizencould not validly acquire onehalf (1/2) interest in each ofthe subject parcels of land byway of the two (2) deeds ofquitclaimastheyareinrealitydonationsinter vivos.Italsoreasonsoutthattheelementsofdonationarepresentintheconveyancemade byHelen in favor ofDavid: first,Helenconsented to the execution of the documents; second, thedispositions weremade in public documents; third, Davidmanifested his acceptance of the donation in the SpecialPower of Attorney he executed in favor of Atty. LolitaG.Abela;fourth,thedeedswereexecutedwiththeintentionofbenefitingDavid;andlastly,therewasaresultantdecreasein the assets or patrimony of Helen, being the donor.PetitionerfurtherarguesthatthepaymentofdonorstaxesonthepropertyprovedthatHelenintendedthetransfertobeagiftordonationinter vivos.

Davidmaintains,ontheotherhand,thatheacquiredthepropertybyrightofaccretionandnotbywayofdonation,with the deeds of quitclaim merely declaring Helensintentiontorenouncehershareinthepropertyandnotanintentiontodonate.Hefurtherarguesthat,assumingtherewasindeedadonation,itnevertookeffectsincetheSpecialPower of Attorneyheexecuteddoesnotindicateacceptanceoftheallegeddonation.

95


Therearethree(3)essentialelementsofadonation:(a)thereductionofthepatrimonyofthedonor;(b)theincreaseinthepatrimonyofthedonee;and,(c)theintenttodoanactofliberalityoranimus donandi.Whenappliedtoadonationofan immovable property, the law further requires that thedonation be made in a public document and that thereshouldbeanacceptancethereofmadeinthesamedeedofdonationorinaseparatepublicdocument.

7Incaseswhere

the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, it ismandated that the donor should be notified thereof in anauthenticform,tobenotedinbothinstruments.

8

Not all the elements of a donation of an immovablepropertyarepresentintheinstantcase.Thetransferoftheproperty by virtue of the Deed of Quitclaim executed byHelenresulted inthereductionofherpatrimonyasdonorandtheconsequent increase in thepatrimonyofDavidasdonee. However, Helens intention to perform an act ofliberalityinfavorofDavidwasnotsufficientlyestablished.A perusal of the two (2) deeds of quitclaim reveals thatHelenintendedtoconveytohersonDavidcertainparcelsofland located in the Philippines, and to reaffirm the

quitclaim she executed in 1981which likewise declared awaiver and renunciation of her rights over the parcels ofland. The language of the deed of quitclaim is clear thatHelenmerelycontemplatedawaiverofherrights,titleandinterestoverthelandsinfavorofDavid,andnotadonation.That a donation was far from Helens mind is furthersupported by her depositionwhich indicated that shewasawarethatadonationoftheparcelsoflandwasnotpossiblesincePhilippinelawdoesnotallowsuchanarrangement.

9

Shereasonedthatifshereallyintendedto

___________________

7Art.749,NewCivilCode.8Ibid.9 Q: Ms. Guzman, did you intend to donate your share of the

propertiestoyourson,David?

A: No,sir.Thatwouldhavebeenfoolish.Q: Foolish?

96


donate something to David it would have been moreconvenient if she sold the property and gave him theproceeds therefrom.

10 It appears that foremost in Helens

mindwasthepreservationoftheBulacanrealtywithinthebloodline of Simeon fromwhere they originated, over andabovethebenefit thatwouldaccruetoDavidbyreasonofher renunciation.

11 The element of animus donandi

thereforewasmissing.Likewise, the two (2) deeds of quitclaim executed by

Helenmayhavebeen in thenature of a public documentbut they lack the essential element of acceptance in theproperformrequiredbylawtomakethedonationvalid.Wefind no merit in petitioners argument that the SpecialPower of AttorneyexecutedbyDavidinfavorofAtty.LolitaG.Abelamanifests

__________________

A: Yes.LitaexplainedtomethatwhileIcouldholdthepropertiesinmyownname,sellthemandevenrenouncemyrightsoverthem,PhilippinelawdidnotallowmetodonatethemtoDavid.Ithoughtthatwasalittlestrangebut,ifthatsyourlaw,whatcanIdo?

Anyway,shesaidIcouldonlytakethepropertiesorrenouncetheminDavidsfavor.SoIrenounced.Besides,ifIreallywantedtodonateanythingtoDavid,IcouldhaveaseasilysoldthepropertiesandgivenhimthemoneyIwouldhavemade.Therewouldnthavebeenanypointinrenouncingandallthat,xxx(DepositionofHelenMeyers,12October1994,Chicago,Illinois).

10Ibid.11Q:Whatdidyoutellher?

A: ItoldhermysentimentsaboutSimeonsproperties.Q: Whichwere?A: IfeltthatthepropertiescamefromthelaborofSimeonsforebears.

WhilehewasalivehedidtellmethatheinheritedsomelandinthePhilippinessomefamily,Ithoughtitwasonlyfairthattheyshouldretimeinthe1920s.Sincethepropertiescamefromhismainwiththem.

Q: Whoisthem?

A: Simeonsbloodfamily;David,thatis.xxx(DepositionofHelenMeyersGuzman,12October1994,Chicago,Illinois,U.S.A).

97


hisimpliedacceptanceofhismothersallegeddonationasascrutiny of the document clearly evinces the absencethereof.TheSpecial Power of Attorneymerelyacknowledgesthat David owns the property referred to and that heauthorizesAtty.Abelatosellthesameinhisname.Thereisno intimation, expressly or impliedly, that Davidsacquisition of the parcels of land is by virtue of Helenspossible donation to him and we cannot look beyond thelanguageofthedocumenttomakeacontraryconstructionasthiswouldbeinconsistentwiththeparolevidencerule.

12

Moreover,itismandatedthatifanacceptanceismadeinaseparatepublicwritingthenoticeoftheacceptancemustbe noted not only in the document containing theacceptancebutalsointhedeedofdonation.CommentingonArt. 633 of the Civil Code from whence Art. 749

13 came

Manresa said: If the acceptance does not appear in thesamedocument,itmustbemadeinanother.Solemnwordsarenotnecessary;itissufficientifitshowstheintentiontoacceptxxxx it isnecessarythatformalnoticethereofbegiven to the donor, and the fact that duenotice has beengivenmust be noted in both instruments. Then and onlythenisthedonationperfected.

14

__________________

12 Rule 130, Sec. 9. Evidence of written agreements.When thetermsofanagreementhavebeenreducedtowriting,itisconsideredascontaining all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between thepartiesandtheirsuccessorsininterest,noevidenceofsuchtermsotherthanthecontentsofthewrittenagreementxxxx.

13Art.749.Inorderthatthedonationofanimmovablemaybevalid,itmustbemade inapublicdocument, specifying therein thepropertydonatedandthevalueofthechargeswhichthedoneemustsatisfy.

The acceptancemay bemade in the same deed of donation or in aseparatepublic document, but it shallnot take effectunless it is doneduringthelifetimeofthedonor.

If theacceptance ismade ina separate instrument, thedonor shallbenotifiedthereofinanauthenticform,andthisstepshallbenotedinbothinstruments(CivilCode).

14Di Siock Jian vs. Sy Lioc Suy,43Phil.562(1922),citing5Manresa115.

98

98 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Republic vs. Guzman

Thus, inSantos v. Robledo we emphasized thatwhen thedeedofdonationisrecordedintheregistryofpropertythedocument that evidences the acceptanceif this has notbeen made in the deed of giftshould also be recorded.And in one or both documents, as the case may be, thenotificationoftheacceptanceasformallymadetothedonoror donors should be duly set forth.

15 Where the deed of

donationfailstoshowtheacceptance,orwheretheformalnotice of theacceptancemade ina separate instrument iseither not given to the donor or else noted in the deed ofdonation, and in the separate acceptance, the donation isnullandvoid.

16

These requisites, definitely prescribedby law,havenotbeencompliedwith,andnoproofofcomplianceappearsinthe record. The two (2) quitclaim deeds set out theconveyanceoftheparcelsoflandbyHeleninfavorofDavidbut itsacceptancebyDaviddoesnotappear in thedeeds,nor in theSpecial Power of Attorney.Further, the recordsrevealnootherinstrumentthatevidencessuchacceptanceandnoticethereoftothedonorinanauthenticmanner.Itiswellsettled that if the notification and notation are notcomplied with, the donation is void. Therefore, theprovisionsofthelawnothavingbeencompliedwith,therewasnoeffectiveconveyanceoftheparcelsoflandbywayofdonationinter vivos.

17

However, the inexistence of adonationdoesnot renderthe repudiation made by Helen in favor of David valid.There isnovalid repudiationof inheritanceasHelenhadalready accepted her share of the inheritance when she,together with David, executed a Deed of ExtrajudicialSettlement of the Estate of Simeon Guzmanon29December1970dividingandadjudicatingbetweenthetwo(2)ofthemall the property in Simeons estate. By virtue of suchextrajudicialsettlementtheparcelsoflandwereregisteredinherandhersonsnameinundividedequalshareandforeleven(11)yearstheypos

_________________

15Santos vs. Robledo,28Phil.245(1914).16SeeNote14.17Legasto v. Verzosa,54Phil.766(1930);seeNote14.

99


sessedthelandsintheconceptofowner.Article1056oftheCivilCodeprovides

The acceptance or repudiation of an inheritance, once made isirrevocable and cannot be impugned, except when it was madethroughanyofthecausesthatvitiateconsentorwhenanunknownwillappears.

Nothing on record shows that Helens acceptance of herinheritance from Simeon was made through any of thecauseswhichvitiatedherconsentnoristhereanyproofoftheexistenceofanunknownwillexecutedbySimeon.Thus,pursuant toArt. 1056,Helen cannot belatedly execute aninstrumentwhichhas theeffect of revokingor impugningher previous acceptance of her onehalf (1/2) share of thesubject property from Simeons estate. Hence, the two (2)quitclaimdeedswhichsheexecutedeleven(11)yearsaftershe had accepted the inheritance have no legal force andeffect.

Nevertheless,thenullityoftherepudiationdoesnotipsofactooperatetoconverttheparcelsoflandintores nullius

18

tobeescheatedinfavoroftheGovernment.Therepudiationbeing of no effect whatsoever the parcels of land shouldreverttotheirprivateowner,Helen,who,althoughbeinganAmerican citizen, is qualified by hereditary succession toownthepropertysubjectofthelitigation.

WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court ofAppealswhichsustainedtheDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt of Malolos, Bulacan, dismissing the petition forescheatisAFFIRMED.Nocosts.

_________________

18 The property of nobody. A thing which has no owner, eitherbecause a former owner has finally abandoned it, or because it hasneverbeenappropriatedbyanyperson,orbecause(intheRomanLaw)itisnotsusceptibleofprivateownership;BlacksDictionaryofLaw,4thEd.,p.1470.

100

100 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDBeso vs. Aballe

SOORDERED.

Mendoza, QuisumbingandDe Leon, Jr., JJ.,concur.Buena, J.,Onleave.

Judgment affirmed.

Note.The prohibition against donations betweenspouses applies to donations between persons livingtogether as husband and wife without a valid marriage.(Agapay vs. Palang,276SCRA340[1997])

o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Documents

Republic vs. Guzman