The court ruled that the 1965 deed between Rodrigo and Rodriguez was a donation inter vivos rather than a devise or will. This was because the deed expressly stated that the property would not revert to Rodrigo if Rodriguez predeceased her, indicating an irrevocable transfer of title. Rodrigo also reserved only beneficial title over the property for herself. As such, when Rodrigo sold the property to Vere in 1970, she had no title to transfer since she had already donated the property to Rodriguez in 1965. Therefore, petitioner acquired no title from Vere. The court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
The court ruled that the 1965 deed between Rodrigo and Rodriguez was a donation inter vivos rather than a devise or will. This was because the deed expressly stated that the property would not revert to Rodrigo if Rodriguez predeceased her, indicating an irrevocable transfer of title. Rodrigo also reserved only beneficial title over the property for herself. As such, when Rodrigo sold the property to Vere in 1970, she had no title to transfer since she had already donated the property to Rodriguez in 1965. Therefore, petitioner acquired no title from Vere. The court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
The court ruled that the 1965 deed between Rodrigo and Rodriguez was a donation inter vivos rather than a devise or will. This was because the deed expressly stated that the property would not revert to Rodrigo if Rodriguez predeceased her, indicating an irrevocable transfer of title. Rodrigo also reserved only beneficial title over the property for herself. As such, when Rodrigo sold the property to Vere in 1970, she had no title to transfer since she had already donated the property to Rodriguez in 1965. Therefore, petitioner acquired no title from Vere. The court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
The court ruled that the 1965 deed between Rodrigo and Rodriguez was a donation inter vivos rather than a devise or will. This was because the deed expressly stated that the property would not revert to Rodrigo if Rodriguez predeceased her, indicating an irrevocable transfer of title. Rodrigo also reserved only beneficial title over the property for herself. As such, when Rodrigo sold the property to Vere in 1970, she had no title to transfer since she had already donated the property to Rodriguez in 1965. Therefore, petitioner acquired no title from Vere. The court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 4
G.R. No.
172804, January 24, 2011
GONZALO VILLANUEVA vs. SPOUSES BRANOCO,
The Facts Petitioner Gonzalo Villanueva (petitioner sued respondents, spouses Froilan and Leonila Branoco (respondents), to recover a 3,492 square- meter parcel of land in Leyte (Property) and collect damages. Petitioner claimed ownership over the Property through purchase in July 1971 from Casimiro Vere (Vere), who, in turn, bought the Property from Alvegia Rodrigo (Rodrigo) in August 1970. Petitioner declared the Property in his name for tax purposes soon after acquiring it.
In their Answer, respondents similarly claimed ownership over the Property
through purchase in July 1983 from Eufracia Rodriguez (Rodriguez) to whom Rodrigo donated the Property in May 1965. The two-page deed of donation (Deed), signed at the bottom by the parties and two witnesses, reads in full:
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That as we lived together as husband and wife with
Juan Arcillas, we begot children, namely: LUCIO, VICENTA, SEGUNDINA, and ADELAIDA, all surnamed ARCILLAS, and by reason of poverty which I suffered while our children were still young; and because my husband Juan Arcillas aware as he was with our destitution separated us and left for Cebu; and from then on never cared what happened to his family; and because of that one EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ, one of my nieces who also suffered with our poverty, obedient as she was to all the works in our house, and because of the love and affection which I feel for her, I have one parcel of land located declared in the name of Alvegia Rodrigo, I give (devise) said land in favor of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ, her heirs, successors, and assigns together with all the improvements existing thereon, which parcel of land is more or less described and bounded as follows:
1. It is now in the possession of EUFRACIA
RODRIGUEZ since May 21, 1962 in the concept of an owner, but the Deed of Donation or that ownership be vested on her upon my demise.
That I FURTHER DECLARE, and I reiterate that the land
above described, I already devise in favor of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ since May 21, 1962, her heirs, assigns, and that if the herein Donee predeceases me, the same land will not be reverted to the Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ;
Respondents entered the Property in 1983 and paid taxes afterwards.
The Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court ruled for petitioner, declared him owner of the Property, and ordered respondents to surrender possession to petitioner. The trial court rejected respondents claim of ownership after treating the Deed as a donation mortis causa which Rodrigo effectively cancelled by selling the Property to Vere in 1970. Thus, by the time Rodriguez sold the Property to respondents in 1983, she had no title to transfer.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA granted respondents appeal and set aside the trial courts ruling. While conceding that the language of the Deed is confusing and which could admit of possible different interpretations, the CA found the following factors pivotal to its reading of the Deed as donation inter vivos.
The Issue
The threshold question is whether petitioners title over the Property is
superior to respondents. The resolution of this issue rests, in turn, on whether the contract between the parties predecessors-in-interest, Rodrigo and Rodriguez, was a donation or a devise. If the former, respondents hold superior title, having bought the Property from Rodriguez. If the latter, petitioner prevails, having obtained title from Rodrigo under a deed of sale the execution of which impliedly revoked the earlier devise to Rodriguez.
Ruling:
INTER VIVOS. We affirm the CA.
Naked Title Passed from Rodrigo to Rodriguez Under a
Perfected Donation
We examine the juridical nature of the Deed whether it passed title to
Rodriguez upon its execution or is effective only upon Rodrigos death using principles distilled from relevant jurisprudence.
It is immediately apparent that Rodrigo passed naked title to Rodriguez
under a perfected donation inter vivos. First. Rodrigo stipulated that if the herein Donee predeceases me, the Property will not be reverted to the Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of Rodriguez, signaling the irrevocability of the passage of title to Rodriguezs estate, waiving Rodrigos right to reclaim title. This transfer of title was perfected the moment Rodrigo learned of Rodriguezs acceptance of the disposition which, being reflected in the Deed. Rodrigos acceptance of the transfer underscores its essence as a gift in presenti, not in futuro, as only donations inter vivos need acceptance by the recipient. Indeed, had Rodrigo wished to retain full title over the Property, she could have easily stipulated, as the testator did in another case, that the donor, may transfer, sell, or encumber to any person or entity the properties here donated or used words to that effect. Instead, Rodrigo expressly waived title over the Property in case Rodriguez predeceases her.
In a bid to diffuse the non-reversion stipulations damning effect on his case,
petitioner tries to profit from it, contending it is a fideicommissary substitution clause. Petitioner assumes the fact he is laboring to prove. The question of the Deeds juridical nature, whether it is a will or a donation, is the crux of the present controversy. By treating the clause in question as mandating fideicommissary substitution, a mode of testamentary disposition by which the first heir instituted is entrusted with the obligation to preserve and to transmit to a second heir the whole or part of the inheritance, petitioner assumes that the Deed is a will. Neither the Deeds text nor the import of the contested clause supports petitioners theory.
Second. What Rodrigo reserved for herself was only the beneficial title to the Property, evident from Rodriguezs undertaking to give 1/2 of the produce of the land to Apoy Alve during her lifetime. Thus, the Deeds stipulation that the ownership shall be vested on Rodriguez upon my demise, taking into account the non-reversion clause, could only refer to Rodrigos beneficial title.
Indeed, if Rodrigo still retained full ownership over the Property, it was unnecessary for her to reserve partial usufructuary right over it.
Third. The existence of consideration other than the donors death, such as the donors love and affection to the donee and the services the latter rendered, while also true of devises, nevertheless corroborates the express irrevocability of inter vivos transfers. Thus, the CA committed no error in giving weight to Rodrigos statement of love and affection for Rodriguez, her niece, as consideration for the gift, to underscore its finding. Indeed, doubts on the nature of dispositions are resolved to favor inter vivos transfers to avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the property subject of the deed.
Nor can petitioner capitalize on Rodrigos post-donation transfer of the
Property to Vere as proof of her retention of ownership. If such were the barometer in interpreting deeds of donation, not only will great legal uncertainty be visited on gratuitous dispositions, this will give license to rogue property owners to set at naught perfected transfers of titles, which, while founded on liberality, is a valid mode of passing ownership. The interest of settled property dispositions counsels against licensing such practice.
Accordingly, having irrevocably transferred naked title over the
Property to Rodriguez in 1965, Rodrigo cannot afterwards revoke the donation nor dispose of the said property in favor of another. Thus, Rodrigos post-donation sale of the Property vested no title to Vere. As Veres successor-in- interest, petitioner acquired no better right than him. On the other hand, respondents bought the Property from Rodriguez, thus acquiring the latters title which they may invoke against all adverse claimants, including petitioner.
Petitioner Acquired No Title Over the Property
Alternatively, petitioner grounds his claim of ownership over the Property through his and Veres combined possession of the Property for more than ten years, counted from Veres purchase of the Property from Rodrigo in 1970 until petitioner initiated his suit in the trial court in February 1986. Petitioner anchors his contention on an unfounded legal assumption. The ten year ordinary prescriptive period to acquire title through possession of real property in the concept of an owner requires uninterrupted possession coupled with just title and good faith.
Although Vere and petitioner arguably had just title having successively acquired the Property through sale, neither was a good faith possessor. As Rodrigo herself disclosed in the Deed, Rodriguez already occupied and possessed the Property in the concept of an owner since 21 May 1962, nearly three years before Rodrigos donation in 3 May 1965 and seven years before Vere bought the Property from Rodrigo. In short, when Vere bought the Property from Rodrigo in 1970, Rodriguez was in possession of the Property, a fact that prevented Vere from being a buyer in good faith.
Lacking good faith possession, petitioners only other recourse to maintain his claim of ownership by prescription is to show open, continuous and adverse possession of the Property for 30 years. Undeniably, petitioner is unable to meet this requirement.
