G.R. No. 99327 - Ateneo De Manila University vs. Capulong

Victor Adaza, Sr. and Rosario Gonzales, a legally wed couple, had six children: Horacio, Homero, Demosthenes, Violeta, Teresita, and Victor, Jr.
During his lifetime, Victor Adaza, Sr. executed a Deed of Donation on 10 June 1953, donating a parcel of land in Sinonok, Dapitan City, Zamboanga del Norte, spanning 13.3618 hectares, in favor of his daughter Violeta.
Notably, the Deed of Donation contained a paragraph—later crossed-out—that originally stated the donee would share one-half of the property with one of her siblings after the donor’s death, implying an intended co-ownership.

Violeta accepted the donation in the same instrument before a notary public, even though the land was part of the public domain and had been long cultivated by Victor Adaza, Sr.
Violeta filed a homestead application covering the donated parcel, which was approved; a free patent was issued on 3 October 1956 and an Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. P-11111) was subsequently issued on 26 January 1960.
Tax Declaration No. 9808 recorded the property under Violeta’s name, although later transactions would indicate shared interests.

In 1971, during a family gathering at Horacio’s house in Dapitan City, petitioner Horacio Adaza requested that Violeta sign a Deed of Waiver.
The Deed of Waiver, executed on 28 July 1971 in the presence of Horacio, Homero, Victor, Jr., Teresita, and an aunt, Pilar Adaza Soller, acknowledged that the property titled solely in Violeta’s name was actually held in common with her brother Horacio.
By signing the Deed, Violeta voluntarily waived, transferred, and conveyed her rights, interest, and ownership over one-half of the parcel in favor of Horacio.

In 1962, Violeta, together with her husband Lino Amor, secured a loan from the Philippine National Bank by mortgaging the land covered by OCT No. P-11111.
Horacio, appointed as Provincial Fiscal of Davao Oriental in 1967, had been managing his dealings with the family property, and his presence became more prominent during subsequent family interactions.
A few months after executing the Deed of Waiver, on 12 October 1971, Violeta (joined by her husband) filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 2213) seeking the annulment of the Deed of Waiver on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence, and claimed damages.

The trial court, on 31 May 1974, upheld the validity of the Deed of Waiver and declared Horacio the owner of one-half of the land, ordering Violeta to compensate Horacio from the income of the property.
Unhappy with the ruling, Violeta and her husband appealed before the Court of Appeals, which reversed the decision on the basis that the Deed of Waiver was without cause or consideration, emphasizing that the donation was unconditional.
On petition for review, Horacio maintained that the Deed of Donation, when read in light of the crossed-out paragraph and other evidences (including letters acknowledging co-ownership), created an implied trust in favor of his equal share of the property.

Whether the land donated solely to Violeta by the Deed of Donation was intended to be held in common with her brother Horacio by way of an implied trust.
Whether the crossing-out of the sharing clause in the Deed of Donation and the subsequent execution of the Deed of Waiver evidence the donor’s intent for co-ownership.

Whether Violeta’s signature on the Deed of Waiver was procured through fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence by her brother Horacio.
Whether the waiver, transfer, and conveyance of one-half of the property by Violeta was voluntary and legally effective despite the doubts raised on its formulation.

Whether Horacio’s delay in seeking reconveyance or partition of his alleged one-half share of the property bars his claim due to laches or prescription.
How the familial relationship and the existence of an implied trust affect the strict application of the doctrines of laches and prescription in this context.