G.R. No.

106755 February 1, 2002

MAGAT vs. CA
FACTS:
Basilisa Comerciante is a mother of five (5) children, namely, Rosario, Consolacion, herein
petitioner Apolinaria Austria-Magat, eonardo, and one of herein respondents, !lorentino
umu"os. eonardo died in a #apanese concentration camp at $arlac during %orld %ar &&. &n
'(5), Basilisa "ought a parcel of residential land together *ith the improvement thereon
covered and descri"ed in $C$ +o. R$-,-). ($-)/.0) located in Cavite City. 1n 2ecem"er '3,
'(35, Basilisa e4ecuted a document designated as 56asulatan sa 6aloo"pala (2onation)5. $he
said document *hich *as notari7ed "y Atty. Carlos 8iniegra, contained the follo*ing9
NAGSASALAYSAY
Na alang-alang sa mabuting paglilingkod at pagtingin na iniukol sa akin ng apat kong
mga tunay na anak na sila: ROSARIO, CONSOLACION, APOLINARIA, FLORN!INO
L"#"$OS %%%
&usang loob na ibinibigay ko at ipinagkakaloob ng ganap at hindi na mababawi sa
naulit ng apat na anak ko at sa kanilang mga tagamagmana 'si(), ang aking isang
lupang *+sid+ntial o ti*a,an sampu ng aking ba,ay na,an ng nakati*ik doon na nasa
$agong Pook din, San Antonio, Lungsod ng &abit+, %%% at nakatala sa pangalan ko sa
!itulo !o**+ns bilang !C!-!--./0 'R!-12-/) ng Lungsod ng &abit+3
Na ang &aloob palang ito ay magkakabisa lamang simula sa araw na akoy
pumanaw sa mundo, %%%
Nob+l+ta, &abit+4 Ika-56 ng 7isy+mb*+, 58694
1n !e"ruary ., '(3(, Basilisa e4ecuted a 2eed of A"solute :ale of the su";ect house and lot in
favor of herein petitioner Apolinaria Austria-Magat for <5,---. As the result of the registration of
that sale, $ransfer Certificate of $itle ($C$ for "revity) +o. R$-,-). in the name of the donor
*as cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. T-10434 was ssue! by "#e Re$s"er o% &ee!s o%
Ca'"e C"y ( %a'or o% )e""o(er A)o*(ara Aus"ra-Ma$a" on !e"ruary 0, '(3(.
1n :eptem"er /', '(0), respondents filed "efore the R$C an action against the petitioner for
a((u*+e(" o% TCT No. T-10434. $he R$C dismissed the case, ruling that the donation is a
donation mo*tis (ausa pursuant to Article 3/0 of the +e* Civil Code. =ence, the sale "y the
donor of the said property *as valid since she remained to "e the a"solute o*ner thereof during
the time of the said transaction. CA reversed. $he CA held that there is a clear e4pression of
the irrevoca"ility of the conveyance. T#e rre'o,ab*"y o% "#e !o(a"o( s a ,#ara,"ers", o%
a !o(a"o( ("er ''os. By the *ords 5hindi ma"a"a*i5, the donor e4pressly renounced the
right to freely dispose of the house and lot in >uestion. $he right to dispose of a property is a
right essential to full o*nership. -e(,e, ow(ers#) o% "#e #ouse a(! *o" was a*rea!y w"#
"#e !o(ees e'e( !ur($ "#e !o(or.s *%e"+e.
&::?@9 %A+ the donation of Basilica of the disputed property to her children is a donation inter
vivos, hence, irrevoca"le, and not a donation mortis causa
=@29
Bes. $he e4press irrevoca"ility of the donation (5hindi na ma"a"a*i5) is the distinctive standard
that identifies that document as a donation int+* :i:os. According to the petitioner, the provisions
*hich state that the same *ill only taCe effect upon the death of the donor and that there is a
prohi"ition to alienate, encum"er, dispose, or sell the same, are proofs that the donation
is mo*tis (ausa. %e disagree. $he said provisions should "e harmoni7ed *ith its e4press
irrevoca"ility. Another indication in the deed of donation that the donation is int+* :i:os is the
acceptance clause therein of the donees. %e have ruled that an acceptance clause is a marC
that the donation is int+* :i:os. Acceptance is a re>uirement for donations int+* :i:os. 1n the
other hand, donations mo*tis (ausa, "eing in the form of a *ill, are not re>uired to "e accepted
"y the donees during the donorDs lifetime. &n Cu+:as :4 Cu+:as, the Court ruled that *hen the
deed of donation provides that the donor *ill not dispose or taCe a*ay the property donated
(thus maCing the donation irrevoca"le), he in effect is maCing a donation int+* :i:os. =e parts
a*ay *ith his naCed title "ut maintains "eneficial o*nership *hile he lives. &t remains to "e a
donation int+* :i:os despite an e4press provision that the donor continues to "e in possession
and en;oyment of the donated property *hile he is alive.
&n the $onsato :4 Cou*t o; App+als, *e held that9
(%)hat is most significant Ein determining the type of donationF is the a"sence of stipulation that
the donor could revoCe the donationsG on the contrary, the deeds e4pressly declare them to "e
5irrevoca"le5, a >uality a"solutely incompati"le *ith the idea of conveyances mo*tis
(ausa *here revoca"ility is of the essence of the act, to the e4tent that a testator can not
la*fully *aive or restrict his right of revocation (1ld Civil Code, Art.3)3G +e* Civil Code, Art.
0/0). $he Court enumerated the characteristics of a donation mo*tis (ausa, to *it9
(') &t conveys no title or o*nership to the transferee "efore the death of the transferorG
or, *hat amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the o*nership (full
or naCed) and control of the property *hile aliveG
(/) $hat "efore his death, the transfer should "e revoca"le "y the transferor at *ill, ad
nutumG "ut revoca"ility may "e provided for indirectly "y means of a reserved po*er in
the donor to dispose of the properties conveyedG
()) $hat the transfer should "e void if the transferor should survive the transferee.
&n G+stopa :4 Cou*t o; App+als, this Court held that the prohi"ition to alienate does not
necessarily defeat the int+* :i:os character of the donation. &t even highlights the fact that *hat
remains *ith the donor is the right of usufruct and not anymore the naCed title of o*nership over
the property donated. &n the case at "ar, the provision in the deed of donation that the donated
property *ill remain in the possession of the donor ;ust goes to sho* that the donor has given
up his naCed title of o*nership thereto and has maintained only the right to use (<us ut+ndi) and
possess (<us possid+ndi) the su";ect donated property.
T#e a," o% se**($ "#e sub/e," )ro)er"y "o "#e )e""o(er #ere( ,a((o" be ,o(s!ere! as a
'a*! a," o% re'o,a"o( o% "#e !ee! o% !o(a"o( for the reason that a formal case to revoCe
the donation must "e filed pursuant to Article 3., of the Civil Code *hich speaCs of
an a(tion that has a prescriptive period of four (,) years from non-compliance *ith the condition
stated in the deed of donation. $he rule that there can "e automatic revocation *ithout "enefit of
a court action does not apply to the case at "ar for the reason that the su";ect deed of donation
is devoid of any provision providing for automatic revocation in event of non-compliance *ith the
any of the conditions set forth therein. $hus, a court action is necessary to "e filed *ithin four (,)
years from the non-compliance of the condition violated.
$he petitioner asserts that the action, against the petitioner, for annulment of $C$ +o. $-'-,),
and other relevant documents, for reconveyance and damages, filed "y the respondents on
:eptem"er /', '(0) on the ground of fraud andAor implied trust has already prescri"ed. $he
sale happened on !e"ruary ., '(3( and its registration *as made on !e"ruary 0, '(3( *hen
$C$ +o. R$-,-). in the name of the donor *as cancelled and in lieu thereof $C$ +o. $-'-,),
in the name of the petitioner *as issued. $hus, more than four (,) years have passed since the
sale of the su";ect real estate property *as registered and the said ne* title thereto *as issued
to the petitioner. $he petitioner contends that a( a,"o( %or re,o('eya(,e o% )ro)er"y o( "#e
$rou(! o% a**e$e! %rau! +us" be %*e! w"#( %our 041 years %ro+ "#e !s,o'ery o% %rau!
*hich is from the date of registration of the deed of sale on !e"ruary 0, '(3(G and that the same
prescriptive period also applies to a suit predicated on a trust relationship that is rooted on fraud
of "reach of trust.
%hen oneDs property is registered in anotherDs name *ithout the formerDs consent, an implied
trust is created "y la* in favor of the true o*ner. Article '',, of the +e* Civil Code provides9
Art. '',,. $he follo*ing actions must "e "rought *ithin ten years from the time the right of
action accrues9
(') ?pon a *ritten contractG
(/) ?pon an o"ligation created "y la*G
()) ?pon a ;udgment. (n)
$hus, an action for reconveyance of the title to the rightful o*ner prescri"es in ten ('-) years
from the issuance of the title. &t is only *hen fraud has "een committed that the action *ill "e
"arred after four (,) years.
-owe'er, "#e %our-year )res,r)"'e )ero! s (o" a))*,ab*e "o "#e ,ase a" bar %or "#e
reaso( "#a" "#ere s (o %rau! ( "#s ,ase. $he findings of fact of the appellate court *hich are
entitled to great respect, are devoid of any finding of fraud. $he records do not sho* that the
donor, Basilisa, and the petitioner ever intended to defraud the respondents herein *ith respect
to the sale and o*nership of the said property. 1n the other hand, the sale *as grounded upon
their honest "ut erroneous interpretation of the deed of donation that it is mo*tis (ausa, not int+*
:i:os3 and that the donor still had the rights to sell or dispose of the donated property and to
revoCe the donation.
T#ere be($ (o %rau! ( "#e "rus" re*a"o(s#) be"wee( "#e !o(or a(! "#e !o(ees
(,*u!($ "#e #ere( )e""o(er, "#e a,"o( %or re,o('eya(,e )res,rbes ( "e( 0101 years.
Considering that $C$ +o. $-'-,), in the name of the petitioner and covering the su";ect
property *as issued only on !e"ruary 0, '(3(, the filing of the complaint in the case at "ar in
'(0) *as *ell *ithin the ten-year prescriptive period.