Facts:
Agustin Dizon died intestate on May 15, 1942 leaving
behind his five children Eduardo, Gaudencio, Salud, Valenta and Natividad as
surviving heirs. Among the properties left by the decedent was a parcel of land
with an area of 2,188 sqm covered by OCT 10384.
O In 1944, Eduardo sold his
hereditary rights in the sum of P3 000 to his sister Salud Dizon Salamat. The
sale was evidenced by a private document bearing the signatures of his sisters
Valenta and Natividad as witnesses.
In 1949, Gaudencio likewise sold
his hereditary rights for the sum of P4 000 to his sister Salud. The sale was
evidenced by a notarized document bearing the signature of Eduardo Dizon
and a certain Angela Ramos as witnesses.
On May 30, 1951, Gaudencio died, leaving his daughters.
In 1987, petitioner instituted
an action for compulsory judicial partition of real properties registered in
the name of Agustin Dizon with the RTC. The action was prompted by the refusal
of herein respondent Natividad Dizon Tamayo to agree to the formal distribution
of the properties of deceased Agustin among his heirs. Respondent’s refusal
stemmed from her desire to keep for herself the parcel of land covered by OCT
10384 where she presently resides, claiming that her father donated it to her
in 1936 with the conformity of the other heirs. The subject property is also
declared for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration No. 10376 in the name of
respondent.
The trial court noted that the
alleged endowment which was made orally by the deceased Agustin to herein
respondent partook of the nature of donation which required the observance of
certain formalities set by law. Nevertheless, the trial court rendered judgment
in favour of respondent. The CA affirmed the decision of RTC that there was an
oral donation.
Issue:
WON the donation of land to
respondent is valid.
Ruling.
No.
Art. 749 of the Civil Code
provides
In order that
the donation of an 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 done must satisfy.
It is clear from Art. 749 that a
transfer of real property from one person to another cannot take effect as a
donation unless embodied in a public document.
The alleged donation was done
orally and not executed in a public document. Moreover, the document which was
presented by respondent in support of her claim that her father donated the
subject parcel of land to her was a mere private document of conformity which
was executed by her elder brother, Eduardo in 1956. It should be pointed out
that the brothers Eduardo and Gaudencio had already ceded their herediatary
interests to petitioner Salud Dizon Salamat even before 1950.
In any case, assuming that
Agustin really made the donation to respondent, orally, respondent cannot still
claim ownership over the property. While it is true that a void donation may be
the basis of ownership which may ripen into title by prescription, it is well
settled that possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right,
must adverse and under claim of title.
Respondent was never in adverse
and continuous possession of the property. It is undeniable that petitioners
and respondent, being heirs of the deceased, are co-owners of the properties
left by the latter. A co-ownership is a form of trust, with each owner being a
trustee for each other and possession of a co-owner shall not be regarded as
adverse to other co-owners but in fact is beneficial to them.
The elements in order that a
co-owner’s possession may be deemed adverse to the cestui que trust or the
co-owner are:
1.
That he has
performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to ouster of the cestui que
trust or the co-owners;
2.
That such
positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or
other co-owners; and
3.
That the evidence
must be clear and convincing.
None of the aforesaid requirements is present.
The fact that the subject property is declared for
taxation purposes in the name of respondent who pays realty taxes under Tax
Declaration No. 14376 is of no moment. It is well settled that tax declarations
or realty tax payments are not conclusive evidence of ownership.
As regards the improvements
introduced by the respondent on the questioned lot, the parties should be
guided by Article 500 of the Civil Code which states that: “Upon partition,
there shall be a mutual accounting for the benefits received and reimbursements
for expenses made.
Judgment
reversed and Lot 2557 covered by OCT
10384 is hereby declared to belong to the estate of Agustin Dizon.
No comments:
Post a Comment