Primary Holding

The private deed of donation propter nuptias of real property executed in 1919 under the Old Civil Code is void for not being in a public instrument; therefore, it conveyed no title.

Background

Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante owned a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 352. They had children, including Marcelino and Fortunato Doronio. Simeon and Cornelia executed a private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of Marcelino and his wife Veronica Pico. The description in the deed of donation differed slightly from OCT No. 352 regarding adjacent property owners. Petitioners, heirs of Marcelino, registered the deed through a petition case without naming respondents, heirs of Fortunato, leading to a new TCT in their predecessor's name, covering the entire property. Respondents contested this, claiming only half was intended for donation and the donation was invalid.

Facts

• 1. Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante owned land covered by OCT No. 352.
• 2. Marcelino and Fortunato Doronio were among their children.
• 3. On April 24, 1919, Simeon and Cornelia executed a private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of Marcelino and Veronica.
• 4. The deed description differed slightly from OCT 352 regarding eastern boundary.
• 5. The deed was never notarized and remained a private document.
• 6. Petitioners, heirs of Marcelino, filed for registration of the deed in 1993 without naming respondents, heirs of Fortunato, as parties.
• 7. RTC granted registration leading to TCT No. 44481 covering the entire property in Marcelino's name.
• 8. Respondents claimed the donation was intended for only half the property and was invalid as a private document under the Old Civil Code.
• 9. Both parties occupied portions of the land, but had different claims of ownership.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. 352), though in Spanish without translation, was admissible in evidence as respondents did not timely object.
• 2. The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that only half of the property was donated.
• 3. The Court of Appeals erred in declaring the donation propter nuptias inofficious, premature, illegal, and unprocedural.
• 4. Respondents are barred from questioning the validity of the deed of donation because of the final RTC decision in Petition Case No. U-920 and implied admission.
• 5. Respondents' claim of acquisitive prescription is invalid against a registered title.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The deed of donation only intended to donate half of the property due to discrepancies in boundary descriptions.
• 2. The donation propter nuptias is void as it is a private document and real property donations under the Old Civil Code required a public instrument.
• 3. They acquired half of the property through tradition and/or intestate succession from Simeon and Cornelia Doronio, and through acquisitive prescription.
• 4. The RTC erred in the Petition Case No. U-920 as it was a suit to quiet title where they were not properly impleaded.

Issues

• 1. Was the Original Certificate of Title No. 352 inadmissible in evidence due to lack of translation?
• 2. Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that only half of the property was donated?
• 3. Was the Court of Appeals correct in declaring the donation propter nuptias inofficious, premature, illegal and unprocedural?
• 4. Can the validity of the deed of donation be challenged in an action for reconveyance?
• 5. Is the donation propter nuptias of real property in a private instrument executed in 1919 valid under the Old Civil Code?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA decision, but modified the disposition.
• 2. OCT No. 352 was admissible as evidence because petitioners did not timely object to its admissibility in the lower court. Objections to evidence must be raised promptly.
• 3. The Court agreed with the CA that only half of the property was intended to be donated based on the descriptive discrepancies in the deed and OCT.
• 4. The Court found the donation propter nuptias of real property executed in a private instrument in 1919 to be void under the Old Civil Code. Article 633 of the Old Civil Code requires donations of real property to be in a public instrument for validity.
• 5. The issue of impairment of legitime was deemed prematurely raised in the reconveyance case and should be addressed in a settlement of estate proceeding.
• 6. The final decision in Petition Case No. U-920 (quieting of title) does not bind respondents as they were not properly impleaded as parties, and it was essentially an ex parte proceeding. Suits to quiet title are quasi in rem, and while notice to the whole world is given, personal notice to interested parties is necessary for res judicata.
• 7. Acquisitive prescription is not applicable against registered land under the Torrens System.
• 8. The Supreme Court declared the private deed of donation propter nuptias null and void, ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 44481, and the restoration of OCT No. 352. The determination of heirs and their shares was left for a proper settlement of estate proceeding.

Doctrines

• 1. Admissibility of Evidence: Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the court, even if it is inadmissible by nature. This applies to the OCT in Spanish without translation.
• 2. Donation Propter Nuptias under the Old Civil Code: Donations propter nuptias of real property must be made in a public instrument to be valid under the Old Civil Code. A private instrument is insufficient to convey title.
• 3. Torrens System and Acquisitive Prescription: Title to land registered under the Torrens system is indefeasible and cannot be defeated by adverse, open, and notorious possession or acquisitive prescription.
• 4. Res Judicata and Quieting of Title: A judgment in a suit to quiet title is conclusive only between parties properly impleaded. It does not bind those who were not parties to the action. For res judicata to apply, there must be identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action, as well as a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.
• 5. Special Proceedings vs. Civil Actions: Settlement of estate matters, including issues of legitime and advancements, are special proceedings within the jurisdiction of probate courts, and not proper subjects for a civil action for reconveyance and damages.
• 6. Court's Power to Consider Unassigned Errors: Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, have ample authority to consider errors not assigned if they are necessary for a just decision or closely related to assigned errors, especially in the interest of substantial justice.
• 7. Void Contracts: Void contracts are inexistent from the beginning, and the defense of nullity is imprescriptible and can be raised by anyone directly affected.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Documentary evidence in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino." - (Petitioners’ argument, ultimately refuted by the Court on the basis of lack of timely objection).
• 2. "In default of testamentary heirs, the law vests the inheritance, x x x, in the legitimate x x x relatives of the deceased, x x x." - (Article 961, Old Civil Code, cited regarding legitime).
• 3. "Gifts propter nuptias are governed by the rules established in Title 2 of Book 3 of the same Code. Article 633 of that title provides that the gift of real property, in order to be valid, must appear in a public document." - (Articles 633 and 1328, Old Civil Code, crucial for the ruling on donation validity).
• 4. "A title once registered under the torrens system cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious possession; neither can it be defeated by prescription." - (Doctrine on indefeasibility of Torrens title).
• 5. "No man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court." - (Principle of due process and res inter alios acta).

Precedents Cited

• 1. People v. Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002, 388 SCRA 669, 689: Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted.
• 2. People v. Barellano, G.R. No. 121204, December 2, 1999, 319 SCRA 567, 590: Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted.
• 3. Interpacific Transit, Inc. v. Aviles, G.R. No. 86062, June 6, 1990, 186 SCRA 385, 390: Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted.
• 4. Quebral v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101941, January 25, 1996, 252 SCRA 353, 365: Effects of evidence not objected to.
• 5. Natcher v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133000, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 385, 394: Distinction between civil actions and special proceedings, and jurisdiction of probate courts.
• 6. Pagkatipunan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70722, July 3, 1991, 198 SCRA 719, 729: Probate court jurisdiction.
• 7. Mateo v. Lagua, G.R. No. L-26270, October 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 864, 870: Probate court jurisdiction.
• 8. Manotok Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45038, April 30, 1987, 149 SCRA 372, 377: Nullity of void contracts can be set up by third persons.
• 9. Arsenal v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66696, July 14, 1986, 143 SCRA 40, 49: Nullity of void contracts can be set up by third persons.
• 10. Quebral v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101941, January 25, 1996, 252 SCRA 353, 365: Evidence not objected to becomes property of the case.
• 11. Domingo v. Scheer, G.R. No. 154745, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 468, 483: Principle that no one is bound by a judgment in a proceeding where they are not a party.
• 12. Matuguina Integrated Wood Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98310, October 24, 1996, 263 SCRA 490, 505-506: Principle that no one is bound by a judgment in a proceeding where they are not a party.
• 13. Realty Sales Enterprise, Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-67451, September 28, 1987, 154 SCRA 328, 348: Nature of suits to quiet title as quasi in rem.
• 14. Foster-Gallego v. Galang, G.R. No. 130228, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 275, 293: Conclusiveness of judgments in quasi in rem proceedings.
• 15. Sandejas v. Robles, 81 Phil. 421, 424 (1948): Conclusiveness of judgments in quasi in rem proceedings.
• 16. Alejandrino v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114151, September 17, 1998, 295 SCRA 536, 554: Elements of res judicata.
• 17. Bernardo v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 105819, March 15, 1996, 255 SCRA 108, 118: Elements of res judicata.
• 18. Government of the United States of America v. Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 623, 651: Court’s power to relax procedural rules in the interest of justice.
• 19. Fortich v. Corona, G.R. No. 131457, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 624, 646: Court’s power to relax procedural rules in the interest of justice.
• 20. Piczon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 76378-81, September 24, 1990, 190 SCRA 31, 38: Court’s power to relax procedural rules in the interest of justice.
• 21. Serrano v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117040, May 4, 2000, 331 SCRA 331, 338: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 22. Vda. de Javellana v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-60129, July 29, 1983, 123 SCRA 799, 805: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 23. Velarde v. Social Justice Society, G.R. No. 159357, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 283, 312: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 24. Abra Valley College, Inc. v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-39086, June 15, 1988, 162 SCRA 106, 116: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 25. Perez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-56101, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 636, 645: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 26. Nordic Asia Limited v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111159, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 390, 396: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 27. Sesbreño v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, G.R. No. 106588, March 24, 1997, 270 SCRA 360, 370: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 28. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 77425 & 77450, June 19, 1991, 198 SCRA 300: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 29. Soco v. Militante, G.R. No. L-58961, June 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 160, 183: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 30. Ortigas, Jr. v. Lufthansa German Airlines, G.R. No. L-28773, June 30, 1975, 64 SCRA 610, 633: Court’s power to consider unassigned errors.
• 31. Valencia v. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003, 412 SCRA 600, 611: Application of laws at the time of contract execution.
• 32. Ortigas & Co., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126102, December 4, 2000, 346 SCRA 748, 755: Application of laws at the time of contract execution.
• 33. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration v. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-34628, July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 172, 185: Application of laws at the time of contract execution.
• 34. Velasquez v. Biala, 18 Phil. 231, 234-235 (1911): Requirement of public instrument for donation of real property under Old Civil Code.
• 35. Camagay v. Lagera, 7 Phil. 397 (1907): Requirement of public instrument for donation of real property under Old Civil Code.
• 36. Solis v. Barroso, 53 Phil. 912, 914 (1928): Requirement of public instrument for donation of real property under Old Civil Code.
• 37. Ong v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142056, April 19, 2001, 356 SCRA 768, 771: Indefeasibility of Torrens title.
• 38. Brusas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126875, August 26, 1999, 313 SCRA 176, 183: Indefeasibility of Torrens title.
• 39. Rosales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137566, February 28, 2001, 353 SCRA 179: Indefeasibility of Torrens title.
• 40. Jacob v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92159, July 1, 1993, 224 SCRA 189, 193-194: Indefeasibility of Torrens title.
• 41. Francisco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130768, March 21, 2002, 379 SCRA 638, 646: Torrens system intended to guarantee integrity.
• 42. Bayoca v. Nogales, G.R. No. 138210, September 12, 2000, 340 SCRA 154, 169: Torrens system intended to guarantee integrity.
• 43. Balangcad v. Justices of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84888, February 12, 1992, 206 SCRA 169, 175: Purpose of Torrens System.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 633, Old Civil Code: Requirement of public instrument for donation of real property.
• 2. Article 752, Old Civil Code: Limitation on donations to what can be given by will (referred to in CA decision, though not central to SC ruling).
• 3. Article 961, Old Civil Code: Law vests inheritance in legitimate relatives in default of testamentary heirs (referred to in CA decision, though not central to SC ruling).
• 4. Article 1328, Old Civil Code: Gifts propter nuptias are governed by rules of donations.
• 5. Article 1409, Civil Code (presumably referring to the New Civil Code, although the case primarily applied the Old Civil Code): Void contracts are inexistent from the beginning.
• 6. Section 36, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Evidence: Objection to evidence offered.
• 7. Rule 64 (now Rule 63), Rules of Court: Declaratory relief, and parties in such actions.
• 8. Section 2, Rule 90, Rules of Court: Questions of advancement in estate proceedings.
• 9. Section 3, Rule 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: Definition of civil action and special proceedings.
• 10. Rule 64 (now Rule 63), Rules of Court: Action for declaratory relief.