Kinatac An Vs Decena
Kinatac An Vs Decena
Kinatac An Vs Decena
DECISION
LOPEZ, J.:
The validity of a donation of an immovable property is the core issue in this Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Court of Appeals' (CA)
Decision[1] dated June 30, 2017, in CA-G.R. CV No. 04126, which affirmed the findings of the
ANTECEDENTS
Spouses Ramiro and Amada Patenia (Spouses Patenia) owned a 9,600-square meter (sq m) lot
situated in Magugpo, Tagum City, Davao del Norte and registered under Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-168688.[2] After Spouses Patenia's death, their children consisting of the
petitioners discovered that TCT No. T-168688 has been cancelled by virtue of a Deed of
Donation dated January 18, 2002 that their parents supposedly executed in favor of the
respondents.[3] Aggrieved, the petitioners llled an action against the respondents to annul the
donation before the Regional Trial Court, docketed as Civil Case No. 4241. [4] The petitioners
alleged that Spouses Patenia's signatures on the deed were forged and that the donation
impaired their legitimes.[5] On the other hand, the respondents claimed their parents owned a
30,644-sq m parcel of land which includes the donated property. Ramiro, being the eldest
child, was entrusted by their parents to divide and distribute the land to his siblings.
Accordingly, the deed of donation was just part of the distribution of their share on the
property.[6]
On August 11, 2015, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. It held that the
On the issue of whether or not the January 18, 2002 Deed of Donation is falsified or forged,
plaintiffs failed to present evidence of forgery, save for their claim of different handwriting in
xxxx
On the issue that the Deed of Donation is violative of Articles 750. 752. 906 and 907 of the Civil
Code, for being onerous and inofficious, as claimed by defendants, {sic) Again, plaintiffs failed
to present evidence that at the time of the death of their father, he had no other properties
except this 9,600 square meters (sic) parcel of lot registered in his name.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs having failed to substantiate their present action with evidence, this
Dissatisfied, the petitioners appealed to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 04126. They
argued that the donation is void because the notary public failed to require the parties to sign
the notarial register.[9] On June 30, 2017, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC and explained
that the irregularity in the notarization did not invalidate the donation, [10] viz.:
As to the admission of the (sic) Atty. Dagooc of the non-affixing of the signatures of the parties
in his Notarial Register, the same does not invalidate the Deed of Donation.
Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect
to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor
the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
However, the presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as
it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular. A defective notarization will strip the
document of its public character and reduce it to a private document. Consequently, when
there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary
standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure
xxxx
In the instant ease, the private document Deed of Donation is binding between the parties
(Ramiro and Amada, and defendants) and the plaintiffs herein, the alleged heirs of Ramiro and
Amada. This private document was duly authenticated when notary public Atty. Dagooc and
respondent Eva Patenia Maghuyop testified that they were present at the time the Deed of
Donation was executed. Thus, it serves as competent proof of the said document's
xxxx
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The August II, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
11th Judicial Region, Branch 31, Tagum City, in Civil Case No. 4241, is AFFIRMED. [11]
The petitioners sought reconsideration; but was denied.[12] Elence, this recourse. The
petitioners maintained that the donation impaired their legitimes and that the defective
RULING
At the outset, we stress that the petitioners raised a question regarding the RTC and CA's
appreciation of the evidence on whether the donation impaired their legitimes, which is one of
fact and is beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It
is not the Court's task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were
appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the RTC and the CA speak as one in
their findings and conclusions.[14] To be sure, the instant petition merely reiterates the factual
issues and arguments raised in the appeal as to the inofficiousness of the donation. While it is
widely held that this rule of limited jurisdiction admits of exceptions, none exists in the instant
case.[15] Thus, the sole issue left is whether the defective notarization would render the
donation void.
As a rule, contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided
all the essential requisites for their validity are present. When, however, the law requires that a
contract be in some form to be valid, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. Its non-
observance renders the contract void and of no effect.[16] Here, what transpired between
Spouses Patenia and the respondents was a donation of an immovable property that requires
document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document,
but it shall not lake effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an
authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments. (Emphasis supplied.)
Unlike ordinary contracts, which are perfected by the concurrence of the requisites of
consent, object and cause,[17] solemn contracts like donations of immovable property are valid
only when they comply with legal formalities. Absent the solemnity requirements for validity,
the mere intention of the parties and concurrence to the agreement will not give rise to a
contract. In Abellana v. Sps, Ponce,[18] we ruled that an oral donation of a real property is void
and an action to declare its inexistence does not prescribe. Also, in Sumipat v. Banga[19] the
donation was patently void because the donees' acceptance is not manifested either in the
In Dept. of Education Culture & Sports v. Del Rosario,[20] we stated that a deed of donation
acknowledged before a notary public is a public document. The notary public shall certify that
he knows the person acknowledging the instrument and that such person is the same person
who executed the instrument, acknowledging that the instrument is his free act and deed. On
the other hand, it is settled that a defective notarization will strip the document of its public
character and reduce it to a private instrument.[21] Thus, a defective notarization renders the
donation of an immovable property invalid since the requirement that such contract must
appear in a public instrument is absent. In this case, the petitioners argued that the donation
is void because the notary public tailed to require the parties therein to sign the notarial
register. However, we note that the prevailing law at the time of notarization was the Revised
Administrative Code[22] which mandate a notary-public to record in his notarial register the
SECTION 245. Notarial register. — Every notary public shall keep a register to be known as
the notarial register, wherein record shall be made of all his official acts as notary; and he
shall supply a certified copy of such record, or any part thereof, to any person applying for it
xxxx
SECTION 246. Mailers to he entered therein — The notary public shall enter in such register,
in chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to. or acknowledged
before him. the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging the instrument, the
witnesses, if any, to the signature, the date of this execution, oath, or acknowledgment of the
instrument, the Fees collected by him for his services as notary in connection therewith, and;
when the instrument is a contract, he shall keep a correct copy thereof as part of his records,
and shall likewise enter in said records a brief description of the substance thereof, and shall
give to each entry a consecutive number, beginning with number one in each calendar year.
The notary shall give to each instrument executed, sworn to. or acknowledged before him a
number corresponding to the one in his register, and shall also state on the instrument the
page or pages of his register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left
between entries.
x x x x[23]
There is nothing in the law that obligates the parties to a notarized document to sign the
notarial register. This requirement was subsequently included only in Section 3, Rule VI of the
(a) principal;
(c) witness to a signature by thumb or other mark, or to a signing by the notary public on behalf of a
person physically unable to sign.
As explained in Miranda, Jr. v. Alvarez, Sr.[25] and Gaddi v. Atty. Velasco,[26] the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice provides that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the
signatory to the document is in the notary's presence personally at the time of the
notarization, and personally known to the notary public or otherwise identified through
competent evidence of identity. At the time of notarization, " the signatory shall sign or affix
with a thumb or mark the notary public's notarial register"[27] The purpose of these
requirements is to enable the notary public to verify the genuineness of the signature and to
ascertain that the document is the signatory's free act and deed. If the signatory is not acting
of his or her own free will, a notary public is mandated to refuse to perform a notarial act.
The present deed of donation, however, was executed and acknowledged before the notary
public on January 18, 2002, when there is no rule yet that requires the parties to sign the
notarial register. In Heirs of Pedro Alilano v. Atty. Examen,[28] the Court discussed in brief the
Prior to 1917, governing law for notaries public in the Philippines was the Spanish Notarial law
of 1889. However, the law governing Notarial Practice is changed with the passage of the
January 3, 1916 Revised Administrative Code, which took effect in 1917. In 2004, the Revised
Rules on Notarial Practice was passed by the Supreme Court.[29] (Citation omitted.)
In that case, the heirs of Alilano stated that Atty. Examen was prohibited to notarize the
absolute deeds of sale since he was related by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree
with the vendee. We explained that the prohibition might have still applied had the applicable
rule been the Spanish Notarial Law. Yet, the law in force at the time of signing was the Revised
Administrative Code where such prohibition was removed.[30] Thus, Atty. Examen was not
incompetent to notarize the document even if one of the parties to the deed was his brother.
Also, we noted that it is under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice that a notary public is again
Indeed, the new rules cannot be given retroactive effect if they would work injustice or impair
vested rights. In Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[32] we discussed the exceptions to the rule that
x x x file rule does not apply where the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication
provides that pending actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to pending
proceedings would impair vested rights. Under appropriate circumstances, courts may deny
the retroactive application of procedural laws in the event that to do so would not be feasible
or would work injustice. Nor may procedural laws be applied retroactively to pending actions if
to do so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the independence of the
In sum, the deed of donation between Spouses Ramiro and Amada Patenia and the
respondents is valid and compliant with the solemnities in Article 749 of the Civil Code.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, J., Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 27-38; penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, with the concurrence of
[2]
Id. at 28.
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 28-29.
[6]
Id. at 29-30.
[7]
Id. at 43-49.
[8]
Id. at 46-49-30.
[9]
Id. at 29-30
[10]
Id. at 34-36
[11]
Id. at 34-38.
[12]
Id. at 40-42
[13]
Id. at 13.
[14]
Gotan, et al. v. Vinarao, et al., 820 Phil. 257 (2017): Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of
Petronila Suquia Mendoza, et al., 810 Phil. 172 (2017); and Bacsasar v. Civil Service
[15]
The recognized exceptions are: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation,
surmises, or conjectures: (b) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible; (c) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) When the judgment is based on a
misapprehension of facts: (e) When the findings of facts are conflicting: (f) When in making its
findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (g) When the CA's findings are contrary to
those by the trial court: (h) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (i) When the facts set forth in the petition, as well as in the
petitioner's main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; (j) When the findings of
fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by die evidence on
record; or (k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. See Navaja v. Hon.
[16]
Dauden-Hernaez v. De los Angeles, etc., et al., 137 Phil. 900, 906-907 (1969).
[17]
THE CIVIL CODE, Art. 1318.
[18]
481 Phil. 125 (2004).
[19]
480 Phil. 187 (2004).
[20]
490 Phil. 193 (2005).
[21]
Meneses v. Venturozo, 675 Phil. 641 (2011); Diampoc v. Buenaventura, et al., 828 Phil.
479,489 (2018); Heirs of Salud v. Rural Bank of Salinas, Inc., 784 Phil. 21 (2016);
[22]
Chapter 11, Sections 231 -259.
[23]
Act No. 2711. An Act Amending the Administrative Code.
[24]
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC promulgated on July 6, 2004.
[25]
A.C. No. 12196. September 3 2018. 878 SCRA 489.
[26]
742 Phil. 810 (2014).
[27]
Id. at 815-816.
[28]
756 Phil. 608 (2015).
[29]
Id. at 616.
[30]
Id., citing Kupunan, et al. v. Casilan and Court of Appeals, 109 Phil. 889 (1960).
[31]
Rule IV, Section 3(c) provides that [a] notary public is disqualified from performing a
xxxx
[32]
424 Phil. 556 (2002).
[33]
Id. at 570.