FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-24750 May 16, 1980

DOROTEO BANAWA, JULIANA MENDOA, !A"IANO AM#ONIN a$% GLI!ERIA
ABRENI!A, petitioners,
vs.
#RIMITI&A MIRANO, GREGORIA MIRANO, JUANA MIRANO a$% MAR!IANO
MIRANO, respondents.
Jose W. Diokno for petitioners.
Recto Law Office for respondents.

'ERNANDE, J.:+.wph!1
This is a petition for review by certiorari of the decision of the Court of ppea!s pro"u!#ated
on pri! $%, $&'(
1
in C ).R. No. %*(&+,R, entit!ed "Primitive Mirano, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellees, verss, Doroteo !anawa, et al., Defendants-Appellants", the dispositive part of
which is- t"#.$%&'w($
In view of the fore#oin#, the appea!ed .ud#"ent is hereby affir"ed, with costs
a#ainst defendants,appe!!ants.
RTC % parce!s of !and was awarded to /irano
The .ud#"ent of the !ower court which was affir"ed reads as fo!!ows- t"#.$%&'w($
012R2FOR2, .ud#"ent is hereby rendered-
3a4 Dec!arin# the p!aintiffs to be the owners of the two parce!s of !and
described in para#raph * of the co"p!aint5
3b4 Orderin# the defendants to de!iver the possession of the said parce!s of
!and to the p!aintiffs5
3c4 Dec!arin# the deed of sa!e e6ecuted by Ro"an 7iscocho, 8au!a 7iscocho
and /aria Car"en /endo9a in favor of Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana
/endo9a, dated pri! ;, $&;<, as evidenced by 26hibit =2= and its re#istration
in the re#istry of deeds of 7atan#as, to be nu!! and void5
3d4 Dec!arin# nu!! and void the deed of donation, dated u#ust +, $&(',
evidenced by 26hibit =D= e6ecuted by the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and
:u!iana /endo9a in favor of the spouses Casiano "ponin and )!iceria
brenica as we!! as Ta6 Dec!arations No. %'>$> in the na"es of the spouses
Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a, and No. %'>;( in the na"es of the
spouses Casiano "ponin and )!iceria brenica, and the re#istration of the
said deed of donation in the re#istry of deeds of 7atan#as5 and
3e4 Orderin# the defendants to pay to the p!aintiffs actua! da"a#es in the
a"ount of 8 ;,(<< and attorney=s fees in the a"ount of 8(<<.<<, and the
costs of this action.
SO ORD2R2D.
2
The spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a both died durin# the pendency of this
case in the Court of ppea!s. They have been substituted by the petitioners Casiano
"ponin and his wife )!iceria brenica, !e#a!!y adopted dau#hter of one of the deceased
petitioners and donee of the Carsuche property.
(
The petitioners fi!ed on /ay %<, $&'(, a "otion for reconsideration of the decision of the
Court of ppea!s. Said "otion was denied on :une %>, $&'(.
4
s found by the Court of ppea!s, the facts are- t"#.$%&'w($
It appears that so"eti"e in $&$$, /aria /irano a niece of appe!!ant :u!iana
/endo9a, and who was then about nine years o!d, was ta?en in by the
appe!!ants,spouses, Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a, in the !atter=s
house in /ahaban# @od!od, Taa!, 7atan#as. ppe!!ants spouses bein#
chi!d!ess, treated and reared her up !i?e their own chi!d. They hired a private
tutor to teach her the rudi"ents of readin#, writin# and arith"etic. They
supported her, #ave her "oney, c!othes and even .ewe!ry. /aria reciprocated
their care and affection by he!pin# with the househo!d chores.
few years !ater, the spouses opened up a store for #enera! "erchandise in
barrio @utucan, Sariaya, Aue9on, fro" which they derived considerab!e
inco"e and which enab!ed the" to acBuire severa! parce!s of !and.
On :u!y *$, $&;&, after a !in#erin# i!!ness, /aria /irano died in Taa!,
7atan#as whi!e sti!! !ivin# with the spouses. t the ti"e of her death she !eft
as her on!y nearest re!atives the herein p!aintiffs, na"e!y 8ri"itiva /irano,
who is a survivin# sister, and )re#oria, :uana and /arciano, a!! surna"ed
/irano, who are the chi!dren of a deceased brother, /artin /irano.
The parties do not dispute the Identity of the two parce!s of !and in
controversy, which are described in para#raph * of the co"p!aint as fo!!ows- t"#.$%&'w($
$. parce! of su#ar !and situated in the 7arrio of Iba, Taa!,
7atan#as, with an area of ;;,%<< sBuare "eters, "ore or !ess.
7ounded on the North, by Ravine5 on the 2ast, by the property
of @eodovico )arcia5 on the South by the property of )re#orio
"ponin5 and on the 0est, by the property of )re#orio /aria
niversario 3now Doroteo 7anawa4. Cnder Ta6 Dec!aration No.
%(&&; in the na"e of /aria /irano and assessed at 8%,%$<.<<.
%. parce! of su#ar !and situated in the barrio of Carsuche,
Taa!, 7atan#as, with an area of (;,<&* sBuare "eters, "ore or
!ess. 7ounded on the North, by the property of #apito ro and
!!ey5 on the 2ast, by an !!ey5 on the South, by the properties
of Fi!o"eno Dio"a"po, )re#orio de !a Rosa and ndres
/orati!!a5 and on the 0est, by the property of #apito ro.
Cnder Ta6 Dec!aration No. $&+>' in the na"e of /aria /irano
and assessed at 8%,+'<.<<.
For purposes of c!earness and convenience, and since the respective
assertions and evidences adduced by the parties re#ardin# the two parce!s of
!and are in sharp diver#ence, we sha!! refer to the first parce! as the Iba
8roperty and to the second parce! as the Carsuche property and, "oreover,
we sha!! treat and discuss the two separate!y.
8arce! $, or the Iba 8roperty.
The parties a#ree that the Iba 8roperty was ori#ina!!y owned by 8!acido
8un9a!an fro" who" it was acBuired on /ay (, $&%$. 8!aintiffs= evidence
upon this point tends to show that the acBuisition of the said parce! of !and
was pursuant to a deed of sa!e contained in a pub!ic instru"ent
ac?now!ed#ed before Notary 8ub!ic Ra"on . Cabrera on the date aforesaid,
a photostatic copy of which was introduced in evidence as 26hibit ==, the
sa"e havin# been secured fro" an ori#ina! copy on fi!e with the Division of
rchives, 7ureau of @ibraries. The deed of sa!e in Buestion states that the Iba
property consisted for"er!y of two parce!s of !and and that they were so!d for
the a"ount of 8%,<<<.<< in favor of /aria /irano. Defendant Doroteo
7anawa i"p!ied!y ad"itted the e6ecution of this notaria! docu"ent when he
dec!ared that in the e6ecution of the docu"ent concernin# the purchase of
the Iba property fro" 8un9a!an the notary pub!ic char#ed hi" 8%<.<< and
another 8(.<< for sta"ps in the na"e of /aria /irano since $&%* 326hs. =,$=
to =,+=4.
7y contrast, defendants= c!ai" of ownership over the Iba property is
predicated upon their assertion that the "oney used in buyin# said !and
pertained to the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a. Defendants
contend that since $&$& 8!acido 8un9a!an borrowed "oney fro" defendant
spouses on three different occasions for the su"s of 8$,%<<.<<, 8$,><<.<<
and 8$,<><.<<, respective!y, each of which was evidenced by 26hs. =$=, =%=,
and =*=, respective!y. Cpon the fai!ure of 8!acido 8un9a!an to dischar#e said
ob!i#ations in $&%$, he a#reed to se!! the !and afore"entioned to the spouses
for 8 *,+<<.<<, but as the tota! va!ue of the three !oans was 8;,<><.<<,
8un9a!an had to rei"burse to said spouses the difference of 8*><.<<. The
docu"ent of sa!e stated the price to be on!y 8%,<<<.<< in view of the fact that
Doroteo 7anawa had on!y 8%(.<< with hi" when the deed was prepared by
the notary pub!ic, and the !atter was char#in# 8$<.<< for every one thousand
pesos "entioned as the consideration of the contract, Defendants !i?ewise
"aintain that the sa!e was "ade to appear in favor of /aria /irano because
said spouses bein# a!ready o!d, they want to !eave so"ethin# to /aria
/irano for her to !ean upon when they wou!d have been #one. They,
however, "ade /aria understand that a!thou#h the property was p!aced
under her na"e, they wou!d continue to be the owners thereof, to ad"inister
and en.oy the fruits of the sa"e as !on# as they !ive, and that she wou!d
beco"e the owner of the !and on!y after their death. /aria supposed!y
e6pressed her confor"ity to and appreciation for the said arran#e"ent. /aria
/irano was $& years o!d when the deed of sa!e was e6ecuted.
8arce! %, or the Carsuche 8roperty.
There is no dispute between the parties that the Carsuche property was
acBuired by way of purchase fro" its ori#ina! owners, to wit- Ro"an
7iscocho, his sister 8au!a 7iscocho, and sister,in,!aw Car"en /endo9a. The
sa!e too? p!ace so"eti"e in Dece"ber, $&*(. There is, however, a sharp
conf!ict of evidence between the parties concernin# the for" of the docu"ent
evidencin# the sa"e and in whose favor the sa!e was "ade at that ti"e. The
p!aintiffs c!ai" that the sa!e was evidenced by a pub!ic instru"ent e6ecuted
before and ratified by Notary 8ub!ic Vicente I!a#an of Taa!, 7atan#as, and
that the vendee "entioned in the said docu"ent was /aria /irano. The
defendants, on the other hand, assert that the sa!e was evidenced by a
private writin# prepared in the handwritin# of Ro"an 7iscocho and that it was
in favor of the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a. Neither the
pub!ic instru"ent a!!e#ed!y ratified by tty. I!a#an nor the private writin#
supposed!y prepared by Ro"an 7iscocho was presented before the !ower
court.
fter !ayin# the proper predicate for the presentation of secondary evidence,
the p!aintiffs presented tty. Vicente I!a#an and Ro"an 7iscocho to testify
upon the e6ecution of the aforesaid pub!ic instru"ent in Dece"ber, $&*(.
These two dec!ared that so"eti"e in Dece"ber, $&*(, the spouses Doroteo
7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a, /aria /irano, Ro"an 7iscocho, 8au!a
7iscocho and Car"en /endo9a, acco"panied by tty. Re#ino ro, went to
the office of tty. I!a#an in Taa!, 7atan#as5 that tty. ro, who was a
c!ass"ate of tty. I!a#an in the !aw schoo!, as?ed the !atter=s per"ission to
use his typewriter on which he prepared a docu"ent in 2n#!ish and which he
as?ed tty. I!a#an to ratify5 that tty. I!a#an trans!ated into Ta#a!o# the
contents of the said docu"ent to the parties and. the witnesses, after which
they a!! si#ned the sa"e5 that the docu"ent invo!ved the sa!e of the Carsuche
property in favor of /aria /irano- that after payin# hi" 8%<.<< for his
services which tty. I!a#an wou!d not accept at first, Doroteo 7anawa as?ed
tty. I!a#an in Ta#a!o# whether the docu"ent that he ratified was =stron#
enou#h= 3/atibay4 to safe#uard the ri#hts of /aria /irano, to which tty.
I!a#an answered in the affir"ative.
DO8TIN) /OT12R 0NTS TO )IV2 8RO82RTD TO DO8T2D C1I@D.
Doroteo 7anawa, on the other hand, stated that on bein# offered the Carsuche property
by the owners thereof, they a#reed on the purchase price of 8*,+<<.<< of which a down
pay"ent of 8$,%<<.<< was "ade and, !ater, an additiona! su" of 8$<<.<< was #iven to
Ro"an 7iscocho, both pay"ents bein# evidenced by a receipt dated Dece"ber $(, $&*'
326h. =&=4. few days !ater, Ro"an 7iscocho prepared in his own handwritin# a private
docu"ent se!!in# the Carsuche property in favor of the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and
:u!iana /endo9a for the su" of 8;,<<<.<<, the vendors havin# as?ed for a 8*<<.<<
increase in price. Doroteo 7anawa, thereafter brou#ht said private docu"ent to the
"unicipa! treasurer of Taa!, 7atan#as, to who" he e6pressed the desire to have the !and
dec!ared in the na"e of /aria /irano so that the !atter "i#ht attend to the pay"ent of
ta6es over the !and whenever he was away. This wish of Doroteo 7anawa was done by
his thu"b,"ar?in# an affidavit, thus accountin# for the fact that said !and appears in the
na"e of /aria /irano in the ta6 dec!arations coverin# the sa"e fro" $&*; to $&('.
5
The petitioners assi#n the fo!!owin# errors- t"#.$%&'w($
I
T12 1ONOR7@2 COCRT OF 882@S )RV2@D 2RR2D IN @0 IN
RC@IN) T1T T12 8@CIN) OF I7 8RO82RTD IN T12 N/2 OF T12
@T2 /RI /IRNO 0S IN T12 NTCR2 OF DONTION INT2R,
VIVOS.
II
T12 1ONOR7@2 COCRT OF 882@S )RV2@D 2RR2D IN @0 IN
RC@IN) T1T 82TITION2RS= INT2R8R2TTION OF RTIC@2 '*% OF
T12 O@D CIVI@ COD2 IS TOO @IT2R@ ND I)NOR2S T12 RTION@2
OF T12 @2)@ 8ROVISION.
III
T12 1ONOR7@2 COCRT OF 882@S )RV2@D 2RR2D IN @0 IN
RC@IN) T1T T12 =2EC28TIV2= C@CS2= OF RTIC@2 $;;> OF T12
CIVI@ COD2 IS 88@IC7@2 IN T12 8R2S2NT CS2.
IV
T12 1ONOR7@2 COCRT OF 882@S )RV2@D 2RR2D IN @0 IN
RC@IN) T1T S2CTION (, RC@2 $<< OF T12 O@D RC@2S OF COCRT
DO2S NOT 88@D IN T12 INSTNT CS2 72CCS2 /RI /IRNO
0S NOT @2)@@D DO8T2D. ISSC2
V
T12 1ONOR7@2 COCRT OF 882@S )RV2@D 2RR2D IN @0 IN RC@IN) 0IT1
R2S82CT TO T12 CRSCC12 8RO82RTD 3@OT NO. %4 T1T T12 D22D OF S@2
2E2CCT2D IN $&;< IN FVOR OF T12 82TITION2RS DOROT2O 7N0 ND 1IS
0IF2 :C@IN /2NDOF ND 01IC1 0S DC@D R2)IST2R2D DID NOT I/8IR
T12 8R2T2ND2D S@2 TO /RI /IRNO.
6
The first, second, third and fourth errors assi#ned refer to the Iba property, parce! $, whi!e
the fifth error assi#ned refers to the Carsuche property, @ot %.
7
s "ay be discerned fro" the assi#n"ent of errors, the basic issue is the ownership of the
two parce!s of !and in Buestion. The p!aintiffs appe!!ees, respondents herein, assert tit!e to
the !ands as heirs of /aria /irano. Defendants,appe!!ants, petitioners herein, c!ai"
ownership over the" by virtue of purchase fro" the ori#ina! owners.
Considerin# that in the case at bar the findin#s of fact of the Court of ppea!s are not
contrary to those of the tria! court, a "inute scrutiny by this Court of said findin#s is not
necessary. In )olentino vs. de Jess, et al.,
8
this Court he!d- t"#.$%&'w($
The findin#s of facts of the respondent Court of ppea!s are conc!usive on
the parties and on this Court 3Ta"ayo vs. Ca!!e.o, @, %(('*, :u!y %>, $&+%, ;'
SCR %+5 Nery, et a!. vs. @oren9o, et a!., @,%*<&' G @,%**+', pri! %+, $&+%,
;; SCR ;* $5 Vi!!acrucis vs. C, @,%&>*$, /arch %&, $&+%, ;; SCR $+'5
De!a Cru9, et a!. vs. C, @,%;<<<, Nov. %&, $&+$, ;% SCR '>5 Na#a Dev.
Corp. vs. C, @,%>$+(, Sept. *<, $&+$, ;$ SCR $<(, $$(5 @acson G 7asi!io
vs. 8ineda, et a!., @,%>(%*, :u!y $', $&+$, ;< SCR *(5 AuiH5ano, et a!. vs.
C, et a!., @,%*<%;, /ay *$, $&+$, *& SCR %%+5 Reyes, et a!. vs. C, et a!.,
@,%>;'', /arch %+, $&+$, *> SCR $*>, $;%5 )ota"co 1er"anas vs.
Shotwe!!, et a!., @,%%($&, /arch %+, $&+$, *> SCR $$%,$$+5 @i".oco vs. C,
@,%<'(', Feb. %+, $&+$, *+ SCR ''*,''&5 De )arcia, et a!. vs. C, @,
%<%';, :an. *<, $&+$, *+ SCR $*<, $*',$*+5 Si"eon vs. 8eH5a, @,%&<;&,
Dec. %&, $&+<, *' SCR '$$4, un!ess 3$4 the conc!usion is a findin# #rounded
entire!y on specu!ation, sur"ise and con.ectures5 3%4 the inference "ade is
"anifest!y "ista?en5 3*4 there is #rave abuse of discretion5 3;4 the .ud#"ent is
based on "isapprehension of facts5 3(4 the Court of ppea!s went beyond the
issues of the case and its findin#s are contrary to the ad"ission of both
appe!!ant and appe!!ees IRoBue vs. 7uan, @,%%;(&, Oct. *$, $&'+, %$ SCR
';>J5 3'4 the findin#s of facts of the Court of ppea!s are contrary to those of
the tria! court5 3+4 said findin#s of facts are conc!usions without citation of
specific evidence on which they are based5 3>4 the facts set forth in the
petition as we!! as in the petitioner=s "ain and rep!y briefs are not disputed by
the respondents I)arcia vs. C, @,%';&<, :une *<, $&+<, ** SCR '%%J 5
and 3&4 when the findin# of fact of the Court of ppea!s is pre"ised on the
absence of evidence and is contradicted by evidence on record ISa!a9ar vs.
)utierre9, @,%$+%+, /ay %&, $&+<, ** SCR %;*J.
The instant case does not fa!! under any of the e6ceptions.
1owever, a!! the issues raised by the petitioners sha!! be passed upon individua!!y.
The first error assi#ned reads- t"#.$%&'w($
The 1onorab!e Court of ppea!s #rave!y erred in !aw in ru!in# that the p!acin#
of the Iba 8roper!y in the na"e of the !ate /aria /irano was in the nature of a
donation inter,vivos.
The respondents
9
correct!y pointed out that neither the Court of ppea!s nor the Court of
First Instance of 7atan#as cate#orica!!y stated that the p!acin# of the properties in the na"e
of /aria /irano was in the nature of a donation inter,vivos. In re.ectin# the petitioners=
contention that a donation mortis casa was e6ecuted, the Court of ppea!s said that, under
the facts and circu"stances narrated by the petitioners, the p!acin# of the Iba property in
the na"e of /aria /irano,if it was to be ca!!ed a donation at a!! , was not in the nature of a
donation mortis casa, but rather it wou!d be in the nature of a donation inter-vivos, #ivin#
its reasons and citin# the app!icab!e !aw and decisions of this Court on the "atter. The
Court of First Instance "ade the sa"e hypothetica! conc!usion.
10
The findin# of the Court of First Instance of 7atan#as which was sustained by the Court of
ppea!s is that what was donated by the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a to
/aria /irano was the "oney used in the purchase of the !ands in Buestion. This conc!usion
of the Court of First Instance of 7atan#as was supported by the testi"ony of /acario 7.
ro, a nephew of the deceased Doroteo 7anawa, that the "oney used by /aria /irano in
the purchase of the Iba and Carsuche properties was #iven to her by, Doroteo 7anawa.
11
If the "oney used by /aria /irano in purchasin# the properties was #iven to her by the
spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a, or by either of the", then the "oney had
be!on#ed to her. /aria /irano purchased and paid for the said properties with her "oney.
s a "atter or fact, the deed of sa!e, 26hibit KK,
12
recites as fo!!ows- t"#.$%&'w($
Aue en consideracion a !a su"a de Dos /i! 8esos "oneda fi!ipina
38%,<<<.<<4 Bue "e ha pa#ado /aria /irano ... .
It is a!so contended by the petitioners that the deeds of sa!e e6ecuted by the owners of the
!and in favor of /aria /irano were si"u!ated contracts intended to shortcut two different
transactions- 3$4 a sa!e in favor of the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a5 and
3%4 a donation of !ands by the spouses in favor of /aria /irano.
1(
There are two ?inds of si"u!ated contracts, na"e!y- the abso!ute!y si"u!ated contract and
the re!ative!y si"u!ated one. In both instances, however, their nu!!ity is based on the want of
true consent of the parties. There is no intent to be bound or the true intent is hidden or
concea!ed. Such contracts are even #enera!!y re#arded as fraudu!ent with intent of in.urin#
third persons. The purpose, therefore, of a si"u!ated contract which "ay be annu!!ed is to
concea! the parties= true intent, or to deceive or defraud third persons.
Fro" the record, there is no showin# of deception or fraud, nor of concea!"ent of intent of
the parties as to the sa!e of the Iba property by the vendors in favor of /aria /irano. The
transactions which transpired were pure!y- 3$4 donations of "oney or thin#s representin# or
eBuiva!ent to "oney by the spouses in favor of /aria /irano which cou!d be "ade and
accepted verba!!y5 and 3%4 purchase of !ands by /aria /irano with the use of that "oney or
credits 3pre,e6istin# indebtedness in favor of the spouses4 as consideration thereof.
The petitioners= contention that Kthe contract of sa!e had been intended to be a contract of
sa!e between the vendors and the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9aK has no
"erit. The petitioners were present when the sa!es were "ade to /aria /irano. They were
the ones who caused the tit!es to the properties to be p!aced in the na"e of /aria /irano
because they wished Kthat after our death /aria /irano cou!d have so"ethin# for her
"aintenance.
14
/oreover, the testi"ony of Vicente I!a#an, the notary pub!ic before who"
the deed of sa!e was e6ecuted, to the effect that he was as?ed by Doroteo 7anawa in
Ta#a!o# KLun# "atibay an# docu"entin# ito para ?ay /ariaK
15
and to which Buery he
answered, KDes, SirK,
16
supports this conc!usion. The conduct of the spouses at the ti"e of
the e6ecution of the contracts are inconsistent with those which the petitioners, the !ate
spouses and their successors,in interest, now assert. Their intention to "a?e /aria /irano
the owner of the said parce!s of !and was c!ear!y shown by their conduct at the ti"e of the
e6ecution of the deeds of sa!e which inf!uenced the vendors to be!ieve that /aria /irano
was indeed the vendee in their a#ree"ent. The petitioners had fu!! ?now!ed#e of the facts
surroundin# the e6ecution of the docu"ent of sa!e. They are eBuitab!y estopped
17
to deny
that the transfer of the !ands in Buestion in favor of /aria /irano was the actua! and true
intent of the parties as e"bodied in the docu"ents of sa!e of the Iba and Carsuche
properties. The docu"ents are what they purport to be M contracts of sa!e fro" the
vendors to the vendee, /aria /irano.
8R2NTS DONT2D 8RO82RTD TO /RI /IRNO
The petitioners sub"it that since there was transfer of tit!e to the !and in !iti#ation to /aria
/irano when the purchase price was in fact actua!!y paid by the petitioners,spouses, an
i"p!ied trust was created. The present !aw on i"p!ied trust is rtic!e $;;> of the New Civi!
Code which provides- t"#.$%&'w($
rt. $;;>. There is an i"p!ied trust when property is so!d, and the !e#a! estate
is #ranted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of
havin# beneficia! interest of the property. The for"er is the trustee, whi!e the
!atter is the beneficiary. 1owever if the person to who" the tit!e is conveyed is
a chi!d, !e#iti"ate or i!!e#iti"ate, of the one payin# the price of the sa!e, no
trust is i"p!ied by !aw, it bein# disputab!y presu"ed that there is a #ift in favor
of the chi!d.
The transactions in Buestion too? p!ace before the Civi! Code of the 8hi!ippines beca"e
effective on u#ust *<, $&(<. 1ence rtic!e $;;> of said Code is not app!icab!e.
18
/oreover, there is no showin# that /aria /irano bou#ht the !ands in Buestion in trust for the
petitioners.
The petitioners a!so c!ai" that they have beco"e owners of the properties by acBuisitive
prescription under rtic!e $&(+ of the O!d Civi! Code which provides- t"#.$%&'w($
Ownership and other rea! ri#hts in i""ovab!e property sha!! prescribe by
possession in #ood faith and under a .ust tit!e for ten years as between
persons present and for twenty years as between absentees.
The above,cited provision spea?s of two essentia! reBuire"ents- 3$4 possession for ten 3$<4
years as between persons present and twenty 3%<4 years, for absentees5 and 3%4 a .ust tit!e.
s re#ards the Iba property 3@ot No. $4, petitioners have not presented any tit!e, .ust or
otherwise, to support their c!ai". nd rtic!e $&(; of the O!d Civi! Code provides, further,
that a K.ust tit!e "ust be proven5 it never can be presu"ed.K
Not havin# a .ust tit!e, as reBuired by rtic!e $&(+ of the O!d Civi! Code, the petitioners
cannot invo?e prescription with respect to the Iba property.
The petitioners a!so assert ownership by acBuisitive prescription over the Iba property under
Section ;$ of the Code of Civi! 8rocedure. The pertinent portion of Section ;$ of the Code
of Civi! 8rocedure reads t"#.$%&'w($
Ten years actua! adverse possession by any person c!ai"in# to be the owner
for that ti"e of any !and or interest in !and, uninterrupted!y continued for ten
years by occupancy, descent, #rants, or otherwise in whatever way such
occupancy "ay have co""enced or continued, sha!! vest in every actua!
occupant or possessor of such !and a fu!! and co"p!ete tit!e, savin# to the
persons under disabi!ities the ri#hts secured by the ne6t section. In order to
constitute such tit!e by prescription or adverse possession, the possession by
the c!ai"ant or by the person under or throu#h who" he c!ai"s "ust have
been actua! open, pub!ic, continuous, under a c!ai" of tit!e e6c!usive of any
other ri#ht and adverse to a!! other c!ai"ants ...
It is a fact that whi!e /aria /irano was a!ive she possessed the property in Buestion as the
owner thereof 1ence, it is error for the petitioners to c!ai" ownership over the Iba property
by acBuisitive prescription under rtic!e ;$ of the Code of Civi! 8rocedure for their
possession of the said property beca"e adverse and e6c!usive on!y in :u!y $&;& after /aria
/irano=s death. Fro" $&;& to the date of the fi!in# in $&(+ of the present action by the
respondents on!y ei#ht years had e!apsed.
The second error assi#ned is- t"#.$%&'w($
The 1onorab!e Court of ppea!s #rave!y erred in !aw in ru!in# that petitioners=
interpretation of rtic!e '*% of the O!d Civi! Code is too !itera! and i#nores the
rationa!e of the !e#a! provision.
rtic!e '*% of the O!d Civi! Code provides- KDonations of persona! property "ay be "ade
verba!!y or in writin#. Verba! donation reBuires the si"u!taneous de!ivery of the #ift. In the
absence of this reBuisite the donation sha!! produce no effect, un!ess "ade in writin# and
accepted in the sa"e for".K
It is contended by the petitioners that ora! donation of persona! property reBuires
si"u!taneous de!ivery of the #ift. s re#ards the Iba property, the consideration #iven by
/aria /irano for the purchase of the said property fro" 8!acido 8un9a!an was the pre,
e6istin# debts of the !atter to the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a.
The contention of the petitioners that there was no si"u!taneous de!ivery of the credits to
/aria /irano is not "eritorious. De!ivery "ay be actua! or constructive.
ctua! de!ivery consists in the #ivin# of actua! possession to the vendee or his a#ent, as for
e6a"p!e, in "anua!!y transferrin# the possession of a thin# fro" the vendor to the vendee.
Constructive de!ivery is a #enera! ter" co"prehendin# a!! those acts which, a!thou#h not
conferrin# physica! possession of the thin#, have been he!d by construction of !aw
eBuiva!ent to acts of rea! de!ivery, as for e6a"p!e, the #ivin# of the ?ey to the house, as
constructive de!ivery of the house fro" the vendor to the vendee.
In the instant case, the ora! donation of the #ift consistin# of pre,e6istin# ob!i#ations of the
vendor, 8!acido 8un9a!an, was si"u!taneous or concurrent with the constructive de!ivery
thereof to /aria /irano when the spouses consented to the e6ecution of the deed of sa!e of
the Iba property in favor of /aria /irano. The e6ecution of the said deed of sa!e constituted
pay"ent by the vendor, 8!acido 8un9a!an, of his outstandin# ob!i#ations due to the
spouses, Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a. ConseBuent!y, there was constructive
transfer of possession of the incorporea! ri#hts of the spouses over the property in Buestion
to /aria /irano.
It is no !on#er necessary to discuss the third error assi#ned because of the ho!din# that
rtic!e $;;> of the New Civi! Code has no retroactive app!ication to the instant case.
nent the fourth error assi#ned, the petitioners ur#e that the donor spouses are entit!ed to
the !and in Buestion by virtue of Section (, Ru!e $<< of the O!d Ru!es of Court, the pertinent
portion of which reads- t"#.$%&'w($
... In case of the death of the chi!d, his parents and re!atives by nature, and
not by adoption, sha!! be his !e#a! heirs, e6cept as to property received or
inherited by the adopted chi!d fro" either of his parents by adoption, which
sha!! beco"e the property of the !atter or their !e#iti"ate re!atives who sha!!
participate in the order estab!ished by the Civi! Code for intestate estates.
The sub"ission of the petitioners is that e6tra.udicia! adoption is within the conte"p!ation
and spirit of this ru!e ofreversion adoptive. 1owever, the ru!e invo!ved specifica!!y provides
for the case of the .udicia!!y adopted chi!d. It is an e!e"entary ru!e of construction that when
the !an#ua#e of the !aw is c!ear and uneBuivoca!, the !aw "ust be ta?en to "ean e6act!y
what it says.
The fifth error assi#ned is- t"#.$%&'w($
The 1onorab!e Court of ppea!s #rave!y erred in !aw in ru!in# with respect to
the Carsuche property 3@ot No. %4 that the deed of sa!e e6ecuted in $&;< in
favor of the petitioner Doroteo 7anawa and his wife :u!iana /endo9a did not
i"pair the pretended sa!e to /aria /irano.
The Court of ppea!s found that there was a sa!e of the Carsuche property in $&*( in favor
of /aria /irano and that such sa!e was e"bodied in a pub!ic instru"ent. 1owever, in $&;<
the sa"e !and was so!d to the petitioners. The sa!e was du!y re#istered. The petitioners
i""ediate!y entered into the possession of the !and as owners.
The c!ai" of the petitioners that they have acBuired by acBuisitive prescription the Carsuche
property 3@ot No. %4 is "eritorious.
Section ;< of the Code of Civi! 8rocedure provides- K8eriod of prescription as to rea! estate
M n action for recovery of tit!e to, or possession of, rea! property, or an interest therein,
can on!y be brou#ht within ten years after the cause of action accrues.K
That the aforesaid Section ;< #overns the instant case is c!ear fro" rtic!e $$$' of the New
Civi! Code which provides that Kprescriptions a!ready runnin# before the effectivity of the
New Civi! Code, sha!! be #overned by the !aws previous!y in force.K The prescriptive period
co""enced to run since $&;<, the date the sa!e in favor of the 7anawas was re#istered
with the Re#ister of Deeds of 7atan#as. 1ence the Code of Civi! 8rocedure #overns.
The instant case, not havin# been fi!ed within ten 3$<4 years fro" the ti"e the cause of
action accrued in $&;<, prescribed under Section ;< of the Code of Civi! 8rocedure in $&(<
because the sa"e was fi!ed on!y in $&(+, seventeen 3$+4 years !ater.
The possession of the 7anawas over the Carsuche property ripened into fu!! ownership in
$&(<, ten 3$<4 years after $&;<, when the possession of the petitioner,spouses which was
actua!, open, pub!ic and continuous, under a c!ai"s of tit!e e6c!usive of any other ri#ht and
adverse to a!! other c!ai" co""enced. 3Sec. ;$, Code of Civi! 8rocedure4. The sa!e in favor
of the 7anawas was re#istered in $&;< with the Re#ister of Deeds of 7atan#as. The actua!
and adverse possession of the petitioner,spouses was continued by their present
successors.
The a!!e#ed bad faith of the petitioners in that they ?new that the !and was previous!y so!d to
/aria /irano is of no conseBuence because Section ;$ of the Code of Civi! 8rocedure
provides that there is prescription Kin whatever way such occupancy "ay have
co""enced.K s he!d in one case K... #ui!ty ?now!ed#e is of no "o"ent for under the !aw
tit!e by prescription "ay be acBuired in whatever way possession "ay have been
co""enced or continued and so !on# as the possessor had possessed the !and open!y,
pub!ic!y, continuous!y and under a c!ai" of tit!e for a period of over ten years.K
19
The tria! court found that the two parce!s of !and in Buestion with a co"bined area of a !itt!e
!ess than ten 3$<4 hectares had an avera#e annua! net yie!d of 8 (<<.<<. tota! a"ount of
8 ;,(<<.<< as actua! da"a#es was awarded in as "uch as /aria /irano had been dead for
nine 3&4 years when the decision of the tria! court was rendered. n ad.ust"ent shou!d be
"ade in view of the findin# of this Court that the Carsuche property, @ot %, be!on#s to the
petitioners.
The Iba property, @ot $, is about ;(N of the co"bined area of the two !ands in Buestion.
Forty,five percent 3;( N4 of the annua! net inco"e of 8(<<.<< is eBuiva!ent to 8%%(.<<.
/aria /irano has been dead for about thirty,one 3*$4 years now. Durin# a!! this period, the
petitioners have been in possession of the Iba property and receivin# the products thereof.
They shou!d pay as actua! da"a#es the tota! a"ount of 8',&+(.<< representin# the net
inco"e for the period of thirty,one 3*$4 years on the basis of 8%%(.<< a year.
The respondents are a!so entit!ed to attorney=s fees in the a"ount of 8$,<<<.<<.
012R2FOR2, the decision of the Court of ppea!s is hereby affir"ed as to the Iba
property 3@ot No. $4 but reversed as to the Carsuche property 3@ot No. %4 which was
acBuired by the spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a who cou!d va!id!y donate
the said property to Casiano "ponin and )!iceria brenica The petitioners are ordered to
pay the private respondents the tota! a"ount of Si6 Thousand Nine 1undred Seventy,Five
8esos 38',&+(.<<4 as actua! da"a#es and the a"ount of One Thousand 8esos
38$,<<<.<<4 as attorney=s fees, without pronounce"ent as to costs.
SO ORD2R2D.
*errero, De +astro and Melencio-,errera, JJ., concr.-.wp&/-.#0t
)ee&ankee 1+&airman2, concrs in t&e reslt.


")*a+a,) O*-$-o$.

MA/A"IAR, J., concurrin# and dissentin#-
I dissent, re the Iba parce!5 because there was no va!id donation of the !and or of the
purchase "oney. In addition to the views e6pressed by the !earned counse! for the
petitioners, to which I subscribe, I wish to stress the fo!!owin#-
$. The "oney with which to buy the property was not donated to /aria by the spouses
:u!iana /endo9a and Doroteo 7anawa. Said spouses wou!d not donate the !ar#e a"ount of
8;,<><.<< 3a!thou#h the deed states the a"ount as 8%,<<<.<<4 to /aria /irano who was
"ere!y tutored to !earn the * R=s M readin#, writin# and arith"etic M at the e6pense of said
spouses. 0hi!e it is true that they supported her, #ave her "oney, c!othes and even .ewe!ry,
they did not send her to schoo!, "uch !ess #ive her a co!!e#e education. It is unthin?ab!e
that the said spouses wou!d #ive her 8;,<><.<< when they cou!d not even #ive her a
pri"ary education which wou!d cost very "uch !ess 3fro" $&$$ to $&$(4. The .ewe!ry they
cou!d have #iven to her cou!d not be better than trin?ets, the cost of which was ne#!i#ib!e
but cou!d be a fond possession of a poor, i"pressionab!e chi!d in the rura! area !i?e /aria5
%. No cash actua!!y passed to /aria fro" the spouses The a"ount of 8;,<><.<< a!!e#ed!y
donated by the spouses to /aria represented the various !oans in the a"ounts of
8$,%<<.<<, 8$,><<.<< and 8$,<><.<< previous!y e6tended to 8!acido 8un9a!an who, as
vendor, so!d the Iba parce! in pay"ent of his debt. 0hi!e the purchase price was 8*,+<<.<<,
the purchase price was "ade to appear in the docu"ent as 8%,<<<.<< to save on notaria!
fees5
*. Cp to the ti"e of her death on :u!y *$, $&;& at the a#e of ;>, /aria was sti!! !ivin# with
the spouses who reared her. This fact shows that /aria was sti!! bein# supported by the
spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a5
;. If there was a va!id donation of the "oney to pay for the Iba su#ar !and in Taa! in $&%$,
which consists of ;.;% hectares, it wou!d see" that /aria wou!d have sufficient funds
derived fro" the produce of such a bi# parce! with which to purchase for herse!f the
Carsuche parce! for the a"ount of 8*,+<<.<< or 8;,<<<.<<. 7ut the fact of the "atter is that
it was sti!! the spouses :u!iana /endo9a and Doroteo 7anawa who paid for the Carsuche
property, on!y that the sa!e was a!!e#ed!y "ade in favor of /aria, who" they did not !e#a!!y
adopt, to insure the surviva! of /aria !on# after they wou!d have been dead as they were
then a!ready o!d. #ain, this #oes a#ainst the #rain of hu"an nature5 because no such deep
concern was e6hibited by the spouses in favor of their !e#a!!y adopted dau#hter )!iceria
brenica5 and
(. The spouses !e#a!!y adopted petitioner )!iceria brenica, wife of co,petitioner Casiano
"ponin, but never !e#a!!y adopted /aria, niece of petitioner :u!iana /endo9a. If the said
spouses wanted to favor their niece /aria for he!pin# in their business, they cou!d have
easi!y adopted her !e#a!!y and thereby "a?e her their !e#a! heir, !i?e petitioner )!iceria
brenica.
I concur re the Carsuche parce!.
There was no va!id sa!e in favor of /aria /irano of said !ot because-
$. 0hi!e a photostat copy of the ear!ier deed of sa!e of $&%$ was secured fro" the Division
of rchives of the 7ureau of @ibraries and sub"itted in evidence as 26hibit 5 no copy of
the !ater a!!e#ed deed of sa!e in $&*( was presented in evidence concernin# the Carsuche
parce!. If there was such a $&*( deed of sa!e 3$; years after the $&%$ deed4, a certified true
copy thereof cou!d be "ore easi!y secured fro" the Division of rchives of the 7ureau of
@ibraries, as it was a !ater docu"ent 3$&*(4 than the $&%$ deed of sa!e, which is avai!ab!e.
The a!!e#ed sa!e in Dece"ber, $&*( was a!!e#ed!y notari9ed by tty. Vicente I!a#an. It is
stran#e that tty. ro who a!!e#ed!y prepared the deed of sa!e, was not the one who
notari9ed the sa"e5
%. In $&*(, /aria was a!ready %* years o!d. 7ein# a very i"portant docu"ent purported!y
evidencin# her tit!e to the Carsuche su#ar !and a!so in Taa!, of (.;<&* hectares, she shou!d
have retained the ori#ina! or a copy of the a!!e#ed deed of sa!e, specia!!y considerin# that
the su" of 8;,<<<.<< was a!!e#ed!y paid for the sa"e5
*. The cance!!ed ta6 dec!aration of the previous owner the vendor , or the new ta6
dec!aration in the na"e of the buyer, usua!!y states the reason for such cance!!ation, !i?e a
deed of sa!e with its date and "ay inc!ude the na"e of the notary pub!ic and p!ace of
e6ecution of the docu"ent. There is no inti"ation of such a state"ent or entry in the
cance!!ed ta6 dec!aration of the vendor or in the new ta6 dec!aration in the na"e of /aria
/irano5 and
;. There is no discussion of any e6haustive e6a"ination of the other four possib!e sources
of the copies of the a!!e#ed $&*( deed of sa!e M fro" the vendor, the notary pub!ic, the
office of the c!er? of court, and as above,stated, the a!!e#ed vendee herse!f.

")*a+a,) O*-$-o$.
MA/A"IAR, J., concurrin# and dissentin#-
I dissent, re the Iba parce!5 because there was no va!id donation of the !and or of the
purchase "oney. In addition to the views e6pressed by the !earned counse! for the
petitioners, to which I subscribe, I wish to stress the fo!!owin#-
$. The "oney with which to buy the property was not donated to /aria by the spouses
:u!iana /endo9a and Doroteo 7anawa. Said spouses wou!d not donate the !ar#e a"ount of
8;,<><.<< 3a!thou#h the deed states the a"ount as 8%,<<<.<<4 to /aria /irano who was
"ere!y tutored to !earn the * R=s M readin#, writin# and arith"etic M at the e6pense of said
spouses. 0hi!e it is true that they supported her, #ave her "oney, c!othes and even .ewe!ry,
they did not send her to schoo!, "uch !ess #ive her a co!!e#e education. It is unthin?ab!e
that the said spouses wou!d #ive her 8;,<><.<< when they cou!d not even #ive her a
pri"ary education which wou!d cost very "uch !ess 3fro" $&$$ to $&$(4. The .ewe!ry they
cou!d have #iven to her cou!d not be better than trin?ets, the cost of which was ne#!i#ib!e
but cou!d be a fond possession of a poor, i"pressionab!e chi!d in the rura! area !i?e /aria5
%. No cash actua!!y passed to /aria fro" the spouses The a"ount of 8;,<><.<< a!!e#ed!y
donated by the spouses to /aria represented the various !oans in the a"ounts of
8$,%<<.<<, 8$,><<.<< and 8$,<><.<< previous!y e6tended to 8!acido 8un9a!an who, as
vendor, so!d the Iba parce! in pay"ent of his debt. 0hi!e the purchase price was 8*,+<<.<<,
the purchase price was "ade to appear in the docu"ent as 8%,<<<.<< to save on notaria!
fees5
*. Cp to the ti"e of her death on :u!y *$, $&;& at the a#e of ;>, /aria was sti!! !ivin# with
the spouses who reared her. This fact shows that /aria was sti!! bein# supported by the
spouses Doroteo 7anawa and :u!iana /endo9a5
;. If there was a va!id donation of the "oney to pay for the Iba su#ar !and in Taa! in $&%$,
which consists of ;.;% hectares, it wou!d see" that /aria wou!d have sufficient funds
derived fro" the produce of such a bi# parce! with which to purchase for herse!f the
Carsuche parce! for the a"ount of 8*,+<<.<< or 8;,<<<.<<. 7ut the fact of the "atter is that
it was sti!! the spouses :u!iana /endo9a and Doroteo 7anawa who paid for the Carsuche
property, on!y that the sa!e was a!!e#ed!y "ade in favor of /aria, who" they did not !e#a!!y
adopt, to insure the surviva! of /aria !on# after they wou!d have been dead as they were
then a!ready o!d. #ain, this #oes a#ainst the #rain of hu"an nature5 because no such deep
concern was e6hibited by the spouses in favor of their !e#a!!y adopted dau#hter )!iceria
brenica5 and
(. The spouses !e#a!!y adopted petitioner )!iceria brenica, wife of co,petitioner Casiano
"ponin, but never !e#a!!y adopted /aria, niece of petitioner :u!iana /endo9a. If the said
spouses wanted to favor their niece /aria for he!pin# in their business, they cou!d have
easi!y adopted her !e#a!!y and thereby "a?e her their !e#a! heir, !i?e petitioner )!iceria
brenica.
I concur re the Carsuche parce!.
There was no va!id sa!e in favor of /aria /irano of said !ot because-
$. 0hi!e a photostat copy of the ear!ier deed of sa!e of $&%$ was secured fro" the Division
of rchives of the 7ureau of @ibraries and sub"itted in evidence as 26hibit 5 no copy of
the !ater a!!e#ed deed of sa!e in $&*( was presented in evidence concernin# the Carsuche
parce!. If there was such a $&*( deed of sa!e 3$; years after the $&%$ deed4, a certified true
copy thereof cou!d be "ore easi!y secured fro" the Division of rchives of the 7ureau of
@ibraries, as it was a !ater docu"ent 3$&*(4 than the $&%$ deed of sa!e, which is avai!ab!e.
The a!!e#ed sa!e in Dece"ber, $&*( was a!!e#ed!y notari9ed by tty. Vicente I!a#an. It is
stran#e that tty. ro who a!!e#ed!y prepared the deed of sa!e, was not the one who
notari9ed the sa"e5
%. In $&*(, /aria was a!ready %* years o!d. 7ein# a very i"portant docu"ent purported!y
evidencin# her tit!e to the Carsuche su#ar !and a!so in Taa!, of (.;<&* hectares, she shou!d
have retained the ori#ina! or a copy of the a!!e#ed deed of sa!e, specia!!y considerin# that
the su" of 8;,<<<.<< was a!!e#ed!y paid for the sa"e5
*. The cance!!ed ta6 dec!aration of the previous owner the vendor , or the new ta6
dec!aration in the na"e of the buyer, usua!!y states the reason for such cance!!ation, !i?e a
deed of sa!e with its date and "ay inc!ude the na"e of the notary pub!ic and p!ace of
e6ecution of the docu"ent. There is no inti"ation of such a state"ent or entry in the
cance!!ed ta6 dec!aration of the vendor or in the new ta6 dec!aration in the na"e of /aria
/irano5 and
;. There is no discussion of any e6haustive e6a"ination of the other four possib!e sources
of the copies of the a!!e#ed $&*( deed of sa!e , fro" the vendor, the notary pub!ic, the office
of the c!er? of court, and as above,stated, the a!!e#ed vendee herse!f.
'oo,$o,).t.hqw
$ nne6 KK, 7rief for the 8etitioners, p. ;, Ro!!o, p. %<>. Decision of Court of
ppea!s written by :ustice Fernando 1ernande9 and concurred in by :ustice
:ose S. Rodri#ue9 and :ustice ntonio Cani9ares.
% Record on ppea!. pp. (+,(>, Ro!!o, p. $;>.
* 7rief for the 8etitioners, p. *, Ro!!o, p. %<>.
; 34id., p. (.
( C Decision, nne6 KK, 7rief for the 8etitioners, pp. +%,+>, Ro!!o, p. %<>.
' 7rief for 8etitioners, pp. $,% Ro!!o, p. %<>.
+ 34id., p. *.
> /arch %+, $&+;, (' SCR $'+, $+$,$+%.
& 7rief for Respondents, pp. $(,$', Ro!!o, p. %%;.
$< Decision of Court of ppea!s, pp. $*,$(5 nne6 KK of 8etition for
Certiorari, Ro!!o, pp. ;(,>%, and Record on ppea!, pp. *+,*&, Ro!!o, p. $;>.
$$ Tsn. pp. +;,+(, u#ust %$, $&(+5 Decision of C, pp. %>,%&5 nne6 KK,
8etition for +ertiorari, Ro!!o, p. '.
$% Fo!der of Ori#ina! 26hibits, pp. $,%.
$* 7rief for the 8etitioners, pp. $+,$>, Ro!!o, p. %<>.
$; Tsn. p. ((, Septe"ber %(, $&(+.
$( Tsn. pp. ;',;+, Dece"ber $+, $&(+.
$' 34id.
$+ rtic!e $;**, New Civi! Code.
$> Ro!!o, et a!. vs. C!aro and 7aBuirin#, &$ 8hi!. %(<.
$& rboso vs. ndrade, >+ 8hi!. +>%.