Catalan vs Basa GR no.

159567 (Incompetency Case) Petitioners: Heirs of Feliciano Catalan Respondents: Heirs of Mercedes Basa (sister of Feliciano) Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari under rule 45 of the Revised R C of the C! which affir"ed the #ud$"ent of the RTC of Pan$asinan dis"issin$ the co"plaint for declaration of docu"ents% recover& of possession and ownership% and da"a$es' (n )*4+% Feliciano Catalan was dischar$ed fro" the "ilitar& service' The ,oard of Medical fficers of the -epart"ent of .eteran !ffairs found that he was unfit to render "ilitar& service due to his /schi0ophrenic reaction% catatonic t&pe% which incapacitates hi" ,ecause of flattenin$ of "ood and affect% preoccupation with worries% withdrawal% and sparce and pointless speech' (n )*4*% he "arried Cora0on Cere0o' (n )*5)% he donated (!,solute -eed of donation) to his sister (Mercedes Catalan) 1 of the real propert& (+2) s3")' (n )*54% People5s Ban6 7 Trust Co"pan& (now as BP() filed a specials proceedin$s ,efore Pan$asinan RTC to declare Feliciano inco"petent' The court issued order for ad#udication of inco"petenc& for appointin$ $uardian for the estate and fi8in$ allowance of Feliciano' The court appointed BP(' (n )*9+% Feliciano and Cora0on donated lots ) 7 4 of their propert& to their son :ulo$io Catalan' (n )*9*% Mercedes sold the propert& in favor of her children -elia and ;esus Basa (ta8 declaration was issued in their na"es < respondents)' (n )*+4% Feliciano and Cora0on donated lot = of the propert& to their children !le8 Catalan% >i,rada Catalan and ?enaida Catalan' (n )*+4% the spouses donated lot 4 to :ulo$io and Florida Catalan' (n )**9% BP( ($uardian) field a case for declaration of nullit& of docu"ents% recover& of possession and ownership as well as da"a$es a$ainst the herein respondents (Basa)' BP( alle$ed: @ the deed of a,solute donation to Mercedes was void a, initio% as Feliciano never donated the propert& to Mercedes' @ even if Feliciano had trul& intended to $ive the propert& to her% the donation would still ,e void% as he was not of sound "ind and was therefore incapa,le of $ivin$ valid consent' @ thus% it clai"ed that of the -!- was void a, initio% the su,se3uent -!A to -elia and ;esus Basa should li6ewise ,e nullified% foe Mercedes had no ri$ht to sell the propert& to an&one'

@ BP( raised dou,ts a,out the authenticit& of the deed of sale% sa&in$ that its re$istration lon$ after the death of Mercedes indicated fraud' @ thus% BP( sou$ht re"uneration for incurred da"a$es and liti$ation e8penses' (n )*49% Feliciano passed awa&' The ori$inal co"plaint was a"ended to su,stitute his heirs in lieu of BP( as co"plainants' (n )***% the RTC court that the evidence presented ,& the co"plainants was insufficient to overco"e the presu"ption that F was sane and co"petent at the ti"e he e8ecuted the - - in favor of Mercedes' RTC declaration: the presu"ption of sanit& or co"petenc& not havin$ ,een dul& i"pu$ned% the presu"ption of due e8ecution of the donation in 3uestion "ust ,e upheld' )' dis"issin$ the plaintiff5s co"plaint' =' declarin$ the defendants ;esus Basa and delia Basa the lawful owners of the land in 3uestion' 4' orderin$ the plaintiff to pa& the defendants !tt&' Fees )2T and to pa& the costs' Petitioners challen$ed the RTC decision ,efore the C!' The C! affir"ed the decision of the RTC' C! decision: the RTC did not co""it a reversi,le error in disposin$ that plaintiff@ appellants failed to prove the insanit& or "ental incapacit& of late Feliciano at the precise "o"ent when the propert& in dispute was donated' The ele"ents for validit& of contracts havin$ ,een present in the )*5) donation coupled with co"pliance with certain sole"nities under CC in donation inter vivos' Petitioners appealed ,efore the AC% with the ff issues: )' B C the C! erred affir"in$ the decision of RTC that petitioners (Catalan) failed to prove the insanit& or "ental incapacit& of Feliciano at the precise "o"ent when the propert& in dispute was donated' =' B C the certificate of disa,ilit& for dischar$e and the report of a ,oard of fficers convened under the provisions of !r"& Re$ulations are ad"issi,le in evidence' 4' B C the C! erred in upholdin$ the su,se3uent sale of the propert& in dispute ,& the donee (Mercedes) to her children respondents ;esus and -elia Basa' 4' B C civil case is ,arred ,& prescription and laches' Conclusion of Petitioners: F had ,een sufferin$ fro" "ental condition since )*4+ which incapacitated hi" fro" enterin$ into na& contract until his death in )**9' The& presented "ore than the re3uisite preponderance of evidence: )' certificate of disa,ilit& for the dischar$e of F' =' F was ad#ud$ed an inco"petent ,& the court of first instance of Pan$asinan and put under the $uardianship of BP(' Rulin$: The petition is ,ereft of "erit and affir"ed the findin$s of C! and the RTC' ! donation is an act li,eralit& where,& a person disposes $ratuitousl& a thin$ or ri$ht in favor of another'% who accepts it'

Consent Re3uisites: )' it should ,e intelli$ent or with an e8act notion of the "atter to which it refers' =' it shld ,e free 4' it shld ,e spontaneous' -onation to ,e valid% there is donor5s capacit& to $ive consent at the ti"e of donation' The ,urden of provin$ such incapacit& rest upon the persons who alle$ed it% if no sufficient proof is presented% capacit& will ,e presu"ed' The evidence presented ,& the petitioners was insufficient to overco"e the presu"ption that Feliciano was co"petent when he donated the propert& to Mercedes' The findin$s of the .eteran Medical fficers (schi0ophrenia)% the alle$ation cannot prove the inco"petence of F' Achi0oprenia: Medical references will show that F could still ,e presu"ed capa,le of attendin$ to his propert& ri$hts' The ad"inistration of correct "edicine helps the patient' Medication reduce delusions% hallucinations and incoherent thou$hts and reduce schi0ophrenic' (t has onl& ver& slow deterioration of intellect' (t does not necessaril& lose his co"petence to intelli$entl& dispose his propert&' The lower court correctl& held that F was of sound "ind at the ti"e that this condition continued to e8ist until proof to the contrar& was adduced' Aince the donation was valid% Mercedes had the ri$ht to sell the propert& to who"ever she chose' The sale of the propert& to -elia andf ;esus was le$al and ,indin$ at the ti"e of its e8ecution% thus the propert& ,elon$s to the"' Prescription: even if the present appeal had propered% the - - was still a voida,le% not void% contract' !s such% it re"ained ,indin$ as it was not annulled in a proper action in court within 4 &ears' Petition denied' -ecision of C! affir"ed in toto'