LAW ON PROPERTY | PERSHING TAN QUETO V. COURT OF APPEALS 148 SCRA 54, FERUARY 27, 1987
PERSHING TAN QUETO V. COURT OF APPEALS
148 SCRA 54, FERUARY 27, 1987
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Oral
donation of an immovable property to be valid must be made in a public
instrument as provided for in the Civil Code
FACTS
1. that Restituta
Tagalinar Guangco de Pombuena (RESTITUTA, for short) received the questioned
lot (no. 304-B), of the Cadastre Survey of the Municipality of Centro, Misamis
Occidental, either as a purported donation or by way of purchase on (February
11,1927) (with P50.00) as the alleged consideration thereof;
2. that the transaction
took place during her mother's lifetime, her father having pre-deceased the
mother;
3. that the donation or
sale was consummated while RESTITUTA was already married to her husband Juan
Pombuena (JUAN, for short);
4. that on January 22,
1935, JUAN filed for himself and his supposed co-owner RESTITUTA an application
for a Torrens Title over the land;
5. that under date of
November 22, 1938 a decision was promulgated in G.L.R.C. No. 1638 (Cadastral
Case No. 12) pronouncing JUAN ('married to RESTITUTA') as the owner of the
land;
6. that on September
22,1949 a contract of lease over the lot was entered into between Pershing Tan
Queto (TAN QUETO, for short, the herein petitioner) and RESTITUTA (with the
consent of her husband JUAN) for a period of ten (10) years;
7. that on December 27,
1960 RESTITUTA sued TAN QUETO for unlawful detainer (the lease contract having
expired) bef ore the Municipal Court of Ozamis City;
8. that as a consequence
of the cadastral case, an Original Certificate of Title (Exh. 10) was issued in
JUAN's name ("married to RESTITUTA") on April 22,1962;
9. that the unlawful
detainer case was won by the spouses in the Municipal Court; but on appeal in
the Court of First Instance, the entire case was DISMISSED because of an
understanding (barter) whereby TAN QUETO became the owner of the disputed lot,
and the spouses RESTITUTA and JUAN in turn became the owners of a parcel of
land (with the house constructed thereon) previously owned (that is, before the
barter) by TAN QUETO;
10. that after the barter
agreement dated October 10, 1962 between JUAN and TAN QUETO, the latter
constructed (See p. 257, Rollo, Vol. II) on the disputed land a concrete
building, without any objection on the part of RESTITUTA;
11. that later, RESTITUTA
sued both JUAN and TAN QUETO for reconveyance of the title over the registered
but disputed lot, for annulment of the barter, and for recovery of the land
with damages.
ISSUE
Whether the questioned lot was transferred to Restituta by donation.
RULING
No.
The court ruled that the oral
donation of the lot cannot be a valid donation intervivos because it was not
executed in a public instrument (Art. 7497 Civil Code), nor as a valid donation
mortis causa for the formalities of a will were not complied with. The allegation
that the transfer was a conveyance to RESTITUTA of her hereditary share in the
estate of her mother (or parents) cannot be sustained for the contractual
transmission of future inheritance is generally prohibited. The fact is
ownership was acquired by both JUAN and RESTITUTA by tradition (delivery)
as a consequence of the contract of sale (See Art. 712, Civil Code) with P50.00
(then a considerable amount) as the cause or consideration of the transaction.
The lot is therefore conjugal, having been acquired by the spouses thru onerous title (the money used being presumably conjugal, there
being no proof that RESTITUTA had paraphernal funds of her own). The contention
that the sale was fictitious or simulated (and therefore void) is bankrupt.
Firstly, there was a valid consideration therefor. Secondly, assuming that
there had indeed been a simulation, the parties thereto cannot use said
simulation to prejudice a stranger to said strategem (like petitioner herein).
