Facts:

The case involves Apolinaria Austria-Magat as the petitioner and the Hon. Court of Appeals along with respondents Florentino Lumubos, Domingo Comia, Teodora Carampot, Ernesto Apolo, Segunda Sumpelo, Mamerto Sumpelo, and Ricardo Sumpelo. The events leading to the case began with Basilisa Comerciante, the mother of five children, including the petitioner and one of the respondents, Florentino Lumubos. In 1953, Basilisa purchased a residential lot in Cavite City, which was later covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4036. On December 17, 1975, she executed a notarized document titled "Kasulatan sa Kaloobpala" (Donation), which stated that she was donating the property to her four children, including the petitioner and Florentino Lumubos, with the condition that the donation would take effect only upon her death. Additionally, a separate document was executed, stipulating that the title would remain in Basilisa's possession during her lifetime and could no...

Facts:

Parties and Property

• Basilisa Comerciante, a widowed Filipina and mother of five children—Rosario Austria, Consolacion Austria, Apolinaria Austria-Magat (petitioner), Leonardo (deceased) and Florentino Lumubos—is the donor.
• The subject property is a residential lot with a house, covering 150 square meters, located in Bagong Pook, San Antonio, Cavite City, originally covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4036 (T-3268).

Documents and Agreements

• On December 17, 1975, Basilisa executed a notarized Kasulatan sa Kaloobpala (Donation) in which she declared:
• The property was given irrevocably and inalienably to her four living children and their heirs.
• The donation was stated to become effective “simula sa araw na ako ay pumanaw sa mundo” (only upon her death), thereby seeming to condition the transfer on her passing.
• Use of terms such as “hindi mababawi” (irrevocable) indicated that the donor renounced her right to further dispose of the property.
• In conjunction with the donation deed, another notarized document entitled Kasulatang Talastasin ng Madla was executed by Basilisa and her children.
• This document reaffirmed that the title (TCT-T-2260, corresponding to RT-4036) would remain in the donor’s possession while she was alive.
• It expressly prohibited the property’s alienation, encumbrance, or sale during her lifetime, thereby emphasizing the restricted power of disposal.

Deed of Absolute Sale

• On February 6, 1979, Basilisa executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject property in favor of petitioner Apolinaria Austria-Magat for the amount of ₱5,000.00.
• Following the registration of this sale:
• The original TCT registered in Basilisa’s name was cancelled; and
• A new title, TCT No. T-10434, was issued to petitioner Apolinaria Austria-Magat on February 8, 1979.

Litigation History

• Respondents (including members among the children and other parties representing deceased siblings) filed Civil Case No. 4426 on September 21, 1983.
• The suit sought annulment of TCT No. T-10434 and related documents, reconveyance of the property, and damages.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite Branch 17 rendered a decision on August 15, 1986, dismissing the case.
• The RTC held that the donation was a donation mortis causa because it would take effect only upon the donor’s death, and the condition for revocation had not been complied with.
• Consequently, the RTC found the sale valid as Basilisa remained the absolute owner during her lifetime.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision on June 30, 1989.
• It declared the Deed of Sale and the new title (TCT No. T-10434) null and void.
• It ruled that the donation was inter vivos based on the irrevocable language in the donation deed and acceptance by the donees, thereby conferring co-ownership immediately.

Subsequent Developments and Relevant Acts

• A violation occurred when one donee, Consolacion Austria, mortgaged the property despite the explicit prohibition to encumber or alienate it.
• The donor, Basilisa, later acted to redeem the property through respondents, thereby acknowledging the donees’ ownership.
• Testimonies by key witnesses, including Atty. Carlos Viniegra (the notary and counsel), clarified the donor’s intentions and the legal nature of the donation.
• The petitioner raised error assignments arguing:
• The Court of Appeals erred in classifying the donation as inter vivos rather than mortis causa, contending that the provisions stating the donation’s effectiveness “upon death” indicated a testamentary character.
• The action for annulment and reconveyance was barred by the applicable prescriptive periods, with disputes over whether a four-year or ten-year period should apply.

Issue:

Nature of the Donation

• Whether the donation executed by Basilisa Comerciante is to be classified as a donation inter vivos or a donation mortis causa.
• How the express terms—particularly the irrevocable language (“hindi mababawi”) and the condition that it takes effect only upon death—are to be harmonized in determining the donation’s true character.

Validity of the Sale

• Whether the sale of the property executed on February 6, 1979 is valid given that the property was donated and subject to the donation’s conditions.
• Whether the transfer and registration of the new title (TCT No. T-10434) reflect a valid conveyance of ownership.

Prescription and Action for Annulment

• Whether the action filed by the respondents for annulment of TCT No. T-10434 and for reconveyance/damages is time-barred under the applicable prescriptive periods (four-year period for fraud versus a ten-year period for implied trust).
• Whether allegations of fraud or implied trust justify the different prescriptive periods invoked by the parties.

Revocation of the Donation

• Whether the donor’s actions, particularly her conduct in redeeming the property after the violation by one of the donees (by mortgaging the property), amount to a valid revocation of the donation.
• Whether the absence of an automatic revocation clause and the need for formal revocation under Article 764 of the Civil Code affect the outcome.

Application of the Rules on Interpretation of Contracts

• Whether the court properly interpreted the conflicting provisions within the donation deed and ancillary documents to determine the true intention of the parties.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)