FACTS:
1. Felomina, the aunt of private respondent Lucila Ponce,
purchased from the late Estela Caldoza-Pacres an agricultural lot with the
intention of giving said lot to her niece, Lucila. Thus, in the deed of sale,
the latter was designated as the buyer of the lot covered by an OCT located at
Los Angeles, Butuan City. The total consideration of the sale was P16,500.00,
but only P4,500.00 was stated in the deed upon the request of the seller.
2. Subsequently, Felomina applied for the issuance of
title in the name of her niece. TCT over the subject lot was issued in the name
of Lucila. Said title, however, remained in the possession of Felomina who
developed the lot through Juanario Torreon and paid real property taxes
thereon.
3. The relationship between Felomina and respondent
spouses Romeo and Lucila Ponce, however, turned sour. The latter allegedly
became disrespectful and ungrateful to the point of hurling her insults and
even attempting to hurt her physically. Hence, Felomina filed the instant case
for revocation of implied trust to recover legal title over the property.
4. Private respondent spouses Lucila and Romeo, on the
other hand, claimed that the purchase price of the lot was only P4,500.00 and
that it was them who paid the same. The payment and signing of the deed of sale
allegedly took place in the office of Atty. Teodoro Emboy in the presence of
the seller and her siblings namely, Aquilino Caldoza and the late Lilia
Caldoza.
5. The trial court rendered a decision holding that an
implied trust existed between Felomina and Lucila, such that the latter is
merely holding the lot for the benefit of the former. It thus ordered the
conveyance of the subject lot in favor of Felomina.
6. The Court of Appeals set aside the decision of the
trial court ruling that Felomina failed to prove the existence of an implied
trust and upheld respondent spouses ownership over the litigated lot.
ISSUE:
Who, as between Felomina and respondent spouses, is the lawful owner of the
controverted lot?
RULING:
It was Felomina and not Lucila who truly purchased the questioned lot from
Estela. The donation of immovable
property by Felomina to Lucila is void.
Under
Article 749 of the Civil Code, in order that the donation of an immovable
property 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.
In
the instant case, what transpired between Felomina and Lucila was a donation of
an immovable property which was not embodied in a public instrument as required
by the foregoing article. Being an oral donation, the transaction was void.
Moreover, even if Felomina enjoyed the fruits of the land with the intention of
giving effect to the donation after her demise, the conveyance is still a void
donation mortis causa, for non-compliance with the formalities of a will. No
valid title passed regardless of the intention of Felomina to donate the
property to Lucila, because the naked intent to convey without the required
solemnities does not suffice for gratuitous alienations, even as between the
parties inter se. At any rate, Felomina now seeks to recover title over the
property because of the alleged ingratitude of the respondent spouses.
No comments:
Post a Comment