new microsoft word document (44)

7/27/2019 New Microsoft Word Document (44)

1/3

CENON FERNANDEZ vs. CESAR MERCADER and ISABEL NOEL

FACTS:

Fernandez and Juan Melgar entered into a partnership involving parcels of lands and carabaos, to be administered by Mr. FernandezDuring Melgars lifetime, he executed a deed of gift of parcel of land together with the work animals therein, in favor of Cesar Mercadeand his wife Isabel Noel. Before Melgar died, Mercader had a conversation with Fernandez and as a result of the conversation agreedin writing to continue the partnership between Fernandez and Melgar under the new name of Mercader-Fernandez. When Fernandezfiled an action for the partition of the parcels of land, alleging that the property he seeks to have partitioned is owned by him in commonwith the defendants, the latter denied the allegations of Fernandez complaint, asserting that they have acquired title in fee simple to the

entire property through a donation made by Juan Melgar and his wife.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Fernandez has a right to one-half of the property in question

RULING:

The Court ordered that said parcel be partitioned as prayed for in the complaint, one-half thereof to be assigned to Cenon Fernandezand the other half to be assigned to the spouses Mercader and Noel jointly. It was further ordered that the registration in the namesdefendants should be cancelled. Melgar was the owner of only an undivided one-half of the land and that was all he could legallyconvey to the donees. Mercader had full notice of the claim of Fernandez to the property in question before the donation was recordedas he is the grandson of Melgar, was in intimate relations with him, and the interest of Fernandez in the Basak property appe ar to havebeen quite generally known. Mercader and his wife are not deemed third persons within the meaning of article 34 of the Mortgage Lawand their position was not improved by the recording of their title in the registry of deeds.

EUGENIO CAGAOAN vs. FELIX CAGAOAN

FACTS:

On November 3, 1915, Gregorio Cagaoan executed a deed of gift of four parcels of land situated in the municipality of Tayug, Provinceof Pangasinan, in favor of Felix Cagaoan. On October 26, 1918, he executed a similar deed in favor of Eugenio Cagaoan for a parcel oland which is the same as that described as parcel No. 4 in the deed of gift executed in favor of Felix. Both of the deeds of gift are freefrom formal defects and were duly accepted by the donees. Eugenio filed an action to have himself declared owner of the land donatedand to set aside, for fraud, the donation made in favor of Felix and cancel the record in the registry.

ISSUE:

Who has the better right to the land in question?

RULING:Eugenio, who is in actual possession of the property, and having first taken possession in good faith, should be the owner of the landFelix had full notice of Eugenios claim before he recorded his gift with the Register of Deeds. He is aware of the nature of the propertyand thus will not be considered as a third person who is not aware of anothers claim as contemplated under Art. 34 of the MortgageLaw. Moreover, there are strong indications in the evidence that some form of deception was practiced upon the donor at the time othe execution of the deed in favor of Felix and that the donor never intended to donate the parcel now in dispute to Felix.

DANGUILAN V. IAC

FACTS:

A residential and farm lot in Cagayan owned by Dominggo Melad were being claimed by petitioner Felix Danguilan and respondenApolonia Melad.

Apolonia contends that she acquired the property when Dominggo Melad sold it to her when she was just three years old in which hermother paid the consideration. She contends that she just moved out of the farm only when in 1946 Felix Danguilan approached herand asked permission to cultivate the land and to stay therein.

Dangguilan presented for his part 2 documents to prove his claim that the properties were given to him by Dominggo Melad through anonerous donation. The onerous part of the donation includes the taking care of the farm and the arrangement of the burial of Dominggo

HELD:

The ruling should be in favor of Danguilan. The contention of Apolonia that the deed of donation is void because it was not madethrough a public document is of no merit. The deed was an onerous one and hence, it was not covered by the rule in Article 749requiring donations of real properties to be effected through a public instrument. An onerous donation is effective and valid if itembraces the conditions that the law requires. Since it has been proven that Danguilan did the conditions in the onerous donationparticularly the arrangement of Dominggos burial, the deed is deemed valid.


2/3

On the other hand, the deed of sale made in favor of Apolonia is suspicious. One may well wonder why the transfer was not made tothe mother herself, who was after all the one paying for the lands. The averment was also made that the contract was simulated andprepared after Domingo Melad's death in 1945.

Even assuming the validity of the deed of sale, the record shows that the private respondent did not take possession of the disputedproperties and indeed waited until 1962 to file this action for recovery of the lands from the petitioner. If she did have possession, shetransferred the same to the petitioner in 1946, by her own sworn admission, and moved out to another lot belonging to her step-brotherIn short, she failed to show that she consummated the contract of sale by actual delivery of the properties to her and her actualpossession thereof in concept of purchaser-owner. Ownership does not pass by mere stipulation but only by delivery.

Aurea Esquejo vs. Cerapio and Daniel Fortaleza

G.R. No. L-15897

February 26, 1965

Facts:

A residential lot in Sta. Maria, Binalonan, Pangasinan (together with three parcels of rice land situated in barrio Manguzmanaof the same town and province) had been donated by Pablo Fortaleza to Aurea Esquejo in consideration of the latter's marriage to thedonor's son, Cresenciano. However, Pablo Fortaleza, the supposed donor, did not own this land, as the same was a registeredproperty of Pedro Fortaleza whose ownership is evidenced by an Original Certificate of Title No. 4322. Meanwhile, Cerapio Fortalezaacquired the residential lot from the heirs of Pedro Fortaleza as shown by a deed of sale and possessed the lot thereafter. Seeking torecover possession thereof, Esquejo filed an action against Cerapio and Daniel Fortaleza at the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.

Issue:

Whether Esquejo is the owner of the property by virtue of donation and thus may recover possession thereof from Fortaleza,et. al.

Arguments of the Parties:

Fortaleza, et. al. claims to have acquired title to the property by virtue of a deed of sale executed with the heirs of PedroFortaleza, the registered owner as evidenced by an original certificate of title.

Esquejo, on the other hand, contends that the lot donated to her is different from the lot covered by Original Certificate of TitleNo. 4322. After donating the residential lot to her, Pablo Fortaleza subsequently conveyed the same property to Cerapio FortalezaWhen this action was filed and Cerapio Fortaleza realized that he could not rely on the deed of sale the latter procured the execution o

another deed of sale. This second deed of sale is simulated and refers to a different land registered in the name of Pedro Fortaleza,whereas the land donated to her and subsequently sold to Cerapio Fortaleza is unregistered and was formerly the property of PabloFortaleza.

The CFI ruled in favor of Fortaleza, et. al., adopting the claims thereof.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Fortaleza, et. al., affirming the CFI for failure of Esquejo to show how her donor acquiredit from the registered owner which would establish the lawful conveyance thereof to the donee under the deed of donation.

Relation to Property:

No specific provision of Property Law has been cited. Nevertheless, the case finds relation to said law. In accordance with

Article 735 of the Civil Code, the provision states that: All persons who may contract and dispose of their property may make adonation. Also, Article 737 which provides that The donors capacity shall be determined as of the time of the making of the donation,shall apply. It follows therefore, that it is a principle of law in that nobody can dispose of that which does not belong to him at the timeas in consonance with Article 750.

In addition, for the donation of an immovable to be valid, the requirements of Article 749, must be observed.


3/3

BONIFACIA MATEO vs. GERVACIO LAGUA

29 SCRA 864

October 30, 1969

FACTS:

Sometime in 1917, the parents of Alejandro Lagua donated two lots to him in consideration of his marriage to petitionerBonifacia Mateo. The marriage was celebrated on May 15, 1917 and thereafter the couple took possession of the lots, but thecertificates of title remained in the donors name.

In 1923, Alejandro died, leaving behind his widow Bonifacia with their infant daughter, who lived with the father-in-lawCipriano Lagua who in turn undertook to farm on the donated lots. At first, Cipriano gave to Bonifacia the share from the lots harvestsbut in 1926 he refused to deliver to petitioner the said share, which reason prompted her to initiate an action and won for hepossession of the lots plus damages.

On July 31, 1941, Cipriano executed a deed of sale of the said lots in favor of his younger son, herein respondentGervacio. Petitioner learned of this only in 1956 when Cipriano stopped giving to petitioner her share to the harvest. A TransfeCertificate of Title (TCT) was issued under respondents name by the Registry of Deeds (ROD) of Pangasinan.

The CFI of Pangasinan declared the TCT issued to respondent null and void and ordered cancelled by the ROD, and forrespondent to vacate and deliver the lots to petitioner. In 1957, Gervacio and Cipriano filed with the CFI for the annulment of thedonation of the two lots. While the case was pending, Cipriano died in 1958. It was dismissed for prescription, having been filed aftethe lapse of 41 years. When appealed, the CA in 1966 held that the donation to Alejandro of the two lots with the combined area o11,888 sq. m. exceeded by 494.75 sq. m. his legitime and the disposable portion that Cipriano could have freely given by will, and tothe same extent prejudiced the legitime of Ciprianos other heir, Gervacio. The donation was thus declared inofficious and herein

petitioners were ordered to reconvey to Gervacio a portion of 494.75 sq. m. from any convenient part of the lots.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly reduced the donation propter nuptias for being inofficious.

HELD:

Decision of CA based on unsupported assumptions set aside; trial courts order of dismissal sustained.

Before the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, the net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, bydeducting all payable obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death; then, aldonations subject to collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus determined, the legitimes of the compulsory heirs canbe established, and only thereafter can it be ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes. Certainly, in order thaa donation may be reduced for being inofficious, there must be proof that the value of the donated property exceeds that of thedisposable free portion plus the donees share as legitime in the properties of the donor. In the present case, it can hardly be seen thatwith the evidence then before the court, it was in any position to rule on the inofficiousness of the donation involved here, and to order

its reduction and reconveyance of the deducted portion to the respondents.

Article 908. To determine the legitime, the value of the property left at the death of the testator shall be considered, deductingall debts and charges, which shall not include those imposed in the will.

To the value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the value of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation, atthe time he made them.

new microsoft word document (44)

Documents