Case Summary (G.R. No. 150179)
Relevant Properties
• Parcel I (Lot No. 653, General Luna St., Dipolog City; 804 sqm; paraphernal property) with a commercial and a residential building
• Parcel II (Lot No. 3805-B, Olingan, Dipolog City; 18,934 sqm; conjugal)
• Parcel III (Lot No. 837-1/4, Magsaysay St., Dipolog City; 880 sqm; conjugal)
• Parcel IV (Lot No. 1106-B-3, Sta. Filomena, Dipolog City; 300 sqm; conjugal)
Testamentary and Donative Instruments
• November 25, 1985 Last Will and Testament by Felisa devising her ½ undivided share in Lot 653 to Leopoldo and spouse
• August 8, 1986 Deed of Donation Inter Vivos by Felisa ceding her ½ undivided share in Lot 653 to Leopoldo (accepted therein)
• September 3, 1986 Deed of Extrajudicial Partition by Felisa and Peter (in behalf of all heirs of Filomena) dividing Honorata’s ⅓ share between Felisa and Filomena’s heirs
Procedural History
• June 21, 1990: Petitioners file for annulment of the Deed of Donation and Partition, accounting, damages, and partition of all properties
• December 16, 1994: RTC Dipolog (Branch 6) upholds validity of the Deed of Donation, declares Extrajudicial Partition unenforceable, orders partition of Parcels II–IV, and apportions Parcel I equally between Leopoldo and the collective heirs
• September 26, 2000: CA affirms RTC decision in toto
• April 30, 2003: SC affirms with modification
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution (case decided post-1990)
• Civil Code provisions on donation inter vivos (Arts. 725, 737, 750–51), contracts and vices of consent (Arts. 1318, 1330, 1337–38), and capacity to consent (Arts. 1317, 1453)
Issues for Review
- Whether the Deed of Donation executed by an aged Felisa was voidable for fraud or undue influence
- Whether the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition is valid and enforceable against all heirs
Validity of the Deed of Donation
• Elements: capacity of donor, consent free from fraud or undue influence, acceptance by donee
• Burden of proof: Petitioners must establish fraud or undue influence by clear and convincing evidence (Art. 1337; Cenido v. Apacionado)
• Findings:
– Felisa was owner of the ½ undivided share at donation date
– Notary’s uncontradicted testimony: donor was of sound mind and spoke sensibly
– Petitioners’ allegations of coercion are vague, self-serving, and unsupported by specific acts
• Conclusion: Consent was valid; Deed of Donation is binding and effective immediately upon acceptance
Invalidity of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition
• Legal capacity: A contract requires consent by one with capacity to dispose of the property (Art. 1318; Delos Reyes v. CA)
• At partition execution, Felisa no longer owned the ½ share (it had been donated to Leopoldo) and lacked authority to represent
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 150179)
Facts
- Filomena Almirol de Sevilla died intestate on December 10, 1973, leaving eight children, three of whom (William, Jimmy, Maria) predeceased her and were survived by spouses and issue.
- She owned four parcels of land in Dipolog City (Lots 653, 3805-B, 837-1/4, and 1106-B-3) and two buildings on Parcel I (Lot 653).
- Parcel I (Lot 653) was her paraphernal property co-owned with single sisters Honorata and Felisa Almirol. Parcels II, III, and IV were conjugal properties with her late husband.
- Honorata died in 1982; her 1/3 share in Lot 653 passed to Felisa and the heirs of Filomena (one-half share each).
- Felisa, at age 81, executed on November 25, 1985, a last will devising her half-share in Lot 653 to Leopoldo Sevilla and Belen Leyson.
- On August 8, 1986, Felisa executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos ceding her half-share in Lot 653 to Leopoldo Sevilla, which he accepted.
- On September 3, 1986, Felisa and Peter Sevilla (for himself and as representative of Filomena’s heirs) executed a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition of Lot 653, allocating Honorata’s former share to Felisa and Filomena’s heirs.
- Respondents sought and secured cancellation of the original title to Lot 653 and application for new titles for the subdivided parcels, pending a Special Power of Attorney from non-participating co-heirs.
- On June 21, 1990, other heirs (including heirs of William, Jimmy, Maria, as well as Rosa and Felipe Sevilla) filed Civil Case No. 4240 for annulment of the Donation and Partition, accounting, damages, receivership, and partition.
- Petitioners alleged that Felisa was of unsound mind and unduly influenced by Leopoldo at the time of the Donation, and that the Partition was void for lack of knowledge and consent of all heirs.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Dipolog City, issued its Decision on December 16, 1994:
- Declared the Deed of Donation valid and binding.
- Declared the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition unenforceable for lack of authority of non-parties.
- Ordered partition of Parcels II–IV among all hei