Lagazo v. Court of Appeals

MORALES
MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP – DONATION/NATURE OF DONATIONS

LAGAZO V. COURT OF APPEALS
MARCH 5, 1998 112796 PANGANIBAN, J
RECIT READY SYNOPSIS

 Relevant Fact:
1. The plaintiff, Tito Lagazo, filed an action against Alfredo Cabanlit for the recovery of a parcel of land
in Sta. Mesa, Manila which used to be owned by his grandmother, Catalina Jacob Vda. De Reyes. 2.
Lagazo’s claim was anchored on an alleged donation made by his grandmother in his favor.
3. On the other hand, the defendant claimed that he bought the property from Eduardo to
whom Catalina allegedly sold the lot.
4. Then, the trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff.
5. On appeal by the defendant, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court mainly
because of the absence of any evidence that plaintiff accepted the donation in the manner required by
Article 749 of the Civil Code.
6. Meanwhile, Lagazo contended, however, that the formalities for a donation of real property should
not apply to his case since it was an onerous donation. He based this on his payments of the
amortizations due on the land before and after the execution of the deed of donation.
 Relevant Issue:
Whether or not the appellate court erred in finding that there is a simple donation in favor of
Lagazo?
 Held:
No. The court ruled in the negative because it was found in this case that the donation was
simple, and not onerous. Even conceding that petitioner’s full payment of the purchase price of
the lot might have been a burden to him, such payment was not however imposed by the donor as
a condition for the donation.
Furthermore, the court found that the donor did not have any intention to burden or charge
petitioner as the donee based on the words in the deed which are in fact typical of a pure
donation. Not only that, the payments even seem to have been made pursuant to the power of
attorney which was executed by Catalina Reyes in favor of petitioner, her grandson, which
authorizes him to execute acts necessary for the fulfillment of her obligations. Thus, there is
nothing in the records which shows that such acts were meant to be a burden in the donation.
Therefore, the respondent court was correct in stating that the payments made by petitioner were
merely his voluntary acts as also gathered from the latter’s testimony in court where he never
claimed that a burden or charge had been imposed by his grandmother.
Doctrines from Rabuya (pp. 631, 648, 677 - 2008 edition):
 Title to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee by virtue of a deed of
donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and the donor duly notified
thereof. The acceptance may be made in the very same instrument of donation. If the acceptance
does not appear in the same document, it must be made in another. Solemn words are not
necessary; it is sufficient if it shows the intention to accept. But in this case, it is necessary that
formal notice thereof be given to the donor, and the fact that due notice has been given must be
1
noted in both instruments
FACTS
 The case started when Catalina Jacob Vda. de Reyes, a widow and grandmother of plaintiff-
appellee, Tito Lagazo, was awarded aportion of the Monserrat Estate, more particularly described
as Lot 8W which was located somewhere in V. Mapa, Old Sta. Mesa, Manila.
 Thereafter, Catalina executed in Canada a Deed of Donation over a Lot 8W in favor of Lagazo.
 Following the donation, the plaintiff-appellee checked with the Register of Deeds and found out
that the property was in the delinquent list, so that he paid the installments in arrears and the
remaining balance on the lot and declared the said property in the name of Catalina.
 Moreover, the plaintiff-appellee sent a demand letter to defendant-appellant, Alfredo Cabanlit,

asking him to vacate the premises. However, the defendant refused to vacate the premises since
he stated that he is the owner of the subject property. Hence, Lagazo instituted the complaint for
recovery of possession and damages against Cabanlit.
 After trial, the lower court decided in favor of plaintiff-appellee and against defendant-appellant,
rationalizing that the version of the former is more credible than that of the latter.
 Consequently, the respondent Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and anchored
its ruling upon the absence of any showing that petitioner accepted his grandmother's donation of
the subject land. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
Whether or not the appellate court erred in finding that there is a simple donation in favor of Lagazo?
RULING
 No. The court ruled in the negative because it was found in this case that the donation was
simple, and not onerous. Even conceding that petitioner’s full payment of the purchase price of
the lot might have been a burden to him, such payment was not however imposed by the donor as
a condition for the donation.
 In addition, a simple or pure donation is one whose cause is pure liberality (no strings attached),
while an onerous donation is one which is subject to burdens, charges or future services equal to
or more in value than the thing donated. As such, under Article 733 of the Civil Code, donations
with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on contracts, hence, the formalities required
for a valid simple donation are not applicable
 Furthermore, the court found that the donor did not have any intention to burden or charge
petitioner as the donee based on the words in the deed which are in fact typical of a pure
donation. Not only that, the payments even seem to have been made pursuant to the power of
attorney which was executed by Catalina Reyes in favor of petitioner, her grandson, which
authorizes him to execute acts necessary for the fulfillment of her obligations. Thus, there is
nothing in the records which shows that such acts were meant to be a burden in the donation.
 Therefore, the respondent court was correct in stating that the payments made by petitioner were
merely his voluntary acts as also gathered from the latter’s testimony in court where he never
claimed that a burden or charge had been imposed by his grandmother.
2
3

Lagazo v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lagazo v. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MORALES

MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP – DONATION/NATURE OF DONATIONS

MARCH 5, 1998 112796 PANGANIBAN, J

RECIT READY SYNOPSIS

 Moreover, the plaintiff-appellee sent a demand letter to defendant-appellant, Alfredo Cabanlit,

You might also like