G.R. No. 86587-93 - Aparicio vs. Andal

On February 20, 1981, Catalina Quilala executed a “Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos” in favor of Violeta Quilala.
The subject property is a parcel of land in Sta. Cruz, Manila, covering an area of 94 square meters, originally registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 17214.
The donation instrument consisted of two pages:

The first page contained the deed of donation, with the signatures of the donor (Catalina Quilala), the donee (Violeta Quilala), and two instrumental witnesses.
The second page bore the Acknowledgment where Catalina personally appeared before a notary public, acknowledging that the donation was her free and voluntary act and deed. This page was signed by Catalina and one of the witnesses on the left-hand margin, and by Violeta and the other witness on the right-hand margin.

The deed’s registration details later changed: TCT No. 17214 was cancelled and a new TCT No. 143015 was issued in the name of Violeta Quilala.

Catalina Quilala died on November 7, 1983.
Violeta Quilala died on May 22, 1984.
Ricky Quilala, claiming to be the surviving son of Violeta, became the petitioner in the case.
Respondents—Gliceria Alcantara, Leonora Alcantara, Ines Reyes, and Juan Reyes—claimed to be the only surviving relatives of Catalina within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity.
The respondents executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate, dividing and adjudicating the above-described property among themselves.

On September 13, 1984, the respondents instituted an action (Civil Case No. 84-26603) for:

Initially, the suit also named Guillermo T. San Pedro, the Register of Deeds of Manila, as a defendant. However, his name was later dropped when the respondents withdrew their complaint against him.
The Regional Trial Court rendered findings that:

Although both Catalina and Violeta signed the deed of donation, the acknowledgment before the notary public was executed only by the donor, Catalina.
The absence of a proper public acknowledgment of Violeta’s acceptance rendered the instrument a private document, thereby nullifying the donation.
There was an issue as Catalina’s SSS records referred to Violeta as an adopted child without providing positive evidence of a legal adoption.
The respondents were determined to be first cousins of Catalina Quilala.
The trial court also ruled that, because Catalina died leaving a will, the respondents’ extrajudicial settlement deed could not be registered.

Declared null and void the deed of donation.
Ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 143015 and the issuance of a new title in the name of the Estate of Catalina Quilala.
Dismissed the registration of the respondents’ extrajudicial settlement and the counterclaim of Ricky Quilala.

The Court of Appeals, on July 30, 1997, affirmed (with modifications) by dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action but allowing for the filing of probate proceedings.
Petitioner Ricky Quilala raised two principal errors on appeal:

That the deed of donation inter vivos was not registrable.
That the trial court erred in holding Violeta Quilala was not Catalina’s daughter.

Whether the deed of donation, despite the technical defect in the acknowledgment (specifically, the donee’s signature not being on the prescribed left-hand margin), qualifies as a valid public instrument under the requirements of notarial acknowledgment.
Whether the entire instrument, taken as a whole, is deemed properly notarized so that its registration is not affected by a technical noncompliance as prescribed in Section 112, paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529.

Whether the absence of a separate or properly located acknowledgment by the donee (Violeta Quilala) invalidated the donation.
Whether the explicit manifestation of acceptance in the deed itself suffices to perfect the donation during the lifetime of both parties.

Whether the trial court’s determination regarding the relationship (i.e., that Violeta was merely an adopted child, and not conclusively the daughter of Catalina) should affect the validity of the donation.
The proper forum for resolving disputes concerning familial status and inheritance, vis-à-vis the donation’s inofficiousness under relevant articles of the Civil Code.