When donation does not transfer ownership

All the requirements must concur for a donation to be valid and binding. Even if assailed many moons later, it can be voided if consent was absent

What is a donation? “Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. (Article 725, Civil Code)”

“In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be in a public document, specifying therein the property donated… The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate document…. (Article 749, Civil Code).”

Clearly, donation is a mode of acquiring ownership. Ownership over land is transferred as long as the donation is in a notarized document, accepted by the donee. Simple as that.

---

---

There is a fairly recent case promulgated by the Supreme Court involving donation of land. In this case, land was donated to nephews and nieces. By virtue of the notarized instrument, the Register of Deeds issued a new title reflecting the names of the donees. They had peaceful and undisturbed possession of the land for a long time, until the very donors, their uncle and aunt, questioned it. Interestingly, the trial court all the way up to the Supreme Court upheld the right of the donors. But why is this so when the donation was in a public instrument?

Here is what actually happened as narrated in Lauro Carindez et. al. v. Spouses Prudencio and Cresencia Cardinez (GR 213001, 4 August 2021). Prudencio, Florentino and Valentin are siblings.

Upon their mother’s demise, they inherited a 1,950-square-meter parcel of land in La Union. In April 1986, title was issued with the three as co-owners. One day in 1994, Valentin asked if Prudencio could donate 10 square meters of his land to him. Being brothers, Prudencio agreed. Valentin made Prudencio and his wife, Cresencia, sign away the 10 square meters to him. Being written in English and having been schooled only up to Grade 3, the spouses did not understand what they perfunctorily signed.

Everything went on uneventfully. Fourteen years later, a survey was conducted in their place. Prudencio inquired with the surveyors if the land he inherited was still in his name. To his shock and horror, his inherited land — in its entirety — was already in the names of the children of Valentin. It was by virtue of a deed of donation he and Cresencia signed. Apparently, the one Valentin asked them to sign over 10 square meters.

Obviously, Prudencio wanted his land back. He never intended to donate the entirety. Valentin’s children naturally refused. They contended that he and his wife donated it to them; they in fact appeared before the notary. Prudencio and Cresencia haled them into court.

Prudencio testified he never consented to donating the entire property. Valentin’s children staunchly relied on the validity of the donation; the completeness of the requirements that validly transferred ownership to them. The trial court ruled in favor of spouses Prudencio and Cresencia.

Aggrieved, Valentin’s children appealed to the Court of Appeals. Again, the Court of Appeals upheld the ownership of the spouses. Still dissatisfied, Valentin’s children brought the issue to the Supreme Court.

Thus said the Highest Court, “(a)n agreement between the donor and the donee is essential like any other contract. As such, the requisites of a valid contract under Article 1318 of the Civil Code must concur, namely: (1) consent of the contracting parties, that is consent to donate the subject land to petitioners; (2) object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) cause of the obligation which is established… Consent is absent in the instant case. Consent to be valid, must have the following requisites: (1) intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers;

(2) free; and (3) spontaneous. The parties’ intention should be clear, otherwise, the donation is rendered void in the absence thereof or voidable if there exists a vice of consent… We agree with the appellate court that respondents did not give their consent to the donation of their land to petitioners. Hence, no valid donation had transpired between the parties.”

---

---

So, here we have a case where even if there is a public instrument attesting to the donation, the court, in all its three tiers, dismissed it as worthless paper. That is because, even if actually signed by the donors, such did not reflect their consent and true intent. There was in fact absence of such consent. The take away — all the requirements must concur for a donation to be valid and binding.

Even if assailed many moons later, it can be voided if consent was absent.

To avoid this situation, always read what you sign. Make sure that you understand every single provision and stipulation. If you still cannot comprehend, consult your lawyer.

---

Article was originally published in Tribune and written by Eduardo Martinez.

About Post Author