Heirs of Marcelino Doronio vs. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio

A donation propter nuptias of real property executed in a private instrument before the effectivity of the New Civil Code (August 30, 1950) is void ab initio for failure to comply with the formal requirement of a public instrument under the Old Civil Code.

Family dispute between heirs of two brothers (Marcelino and Fortunato Doronio) concerning land originally owned by their parents (Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante) in Asingan, Pangasinan. The controversy stems from a 1919 private deed of donation propter nuptias and the subsequent registration thereof in 1993 which cancelled the parents' original title.

• RTC (Urdaneta City): Petition Case No. U-920 filed January 11, 1993 by Marcelino's heirs for registration of the private deed of donation; granted September 22, 1993; TCT No. 44481 issued cancelling OCT No. 352. Petition for reconsideration filed April 28, 1994 by Fortunato's heirs dismissed May 13, 1994 for being final.
• RTC (Branch 45, Urdaneta City): Civil Case No. U-6498 filed by Fortunato's heirs (plaintiffs) for reconveyance and damages against Marcelino's heirs (defendants); decision dated June 28, 2002 dismissed the complaint.
• CA: Decision dated January 26, 2005 reversed the RTC, declared respondents rightful owners of one-half of the property, and directed petitioners to execute a registerable document conveying the same.
• SC: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Heirs of Marcelino Doronio.

• Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante were registered owners of a parcel of land in Barangay Cabalitaan, Asingan, Pangasinan covered by OCT No. 352.
• They had children including Marcelino Doronio and Fortunato Doronio (both deceased); petitioners are Marcelino's heirs, respondents are Fortunato's heirs.
• April 24, 1919: Spouses Simeon and Cornelia executed a private deed of donation propter nuptias (not notarized) in favor of Marcelino and his wife Veronica Pico.
• The deed described the property's eastern boundary as Fortunato Doronio, whereas OCT No. 352 described the eastern boundary as Zacarias Najorda and Alejandro Najorda.
• Both parties occupied portions of the land for several decades.
• January 11, 1993: Heirs of Marcelino filed Petition Case No. U-920 for registration of the deed; no respondents were named; notices posted only on bulletin boards of Barangay Cabalitaan and Municipalities of Asingan and Lingayen.
• September 22, 1993: RTC granted the petition; TCT No. 44481 issued in names of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico; OCT No. 352 cancelled.
• Respondents subsequently filed an action for reconveyance and damages (Civil Case No. U-6498), contending the donation covered only half the property and was inofficious.

• OCT No. 352 inadmissible: Being in Spanish, it requires translation to English or Filipino; its admission violates the Rules of Evidence.
• Validity of donation established: The donation covered the entire property and was already declared valid with finality in Petition Case No. U-920 (an action for quieting of title).
• Res judicata applies: The decision in Petition Case No. U-920 is binding.
• Implied admission: Respondents impliedly admitted the validity of the donation by their conduct.
• Issue of legitime improper: The CA erred in ruling the donation inofficious; this issue is premature and must be raised in settlement of estate proceedings, not in reconveyance.
• Scope of reconveyance: The only issue in reconveyance is who has the better right, not the validity of the deed of donation.

• Admissibility of OCT No. 352: Petitioners failed to object timely to its admissibility; the objection is deemed waived.
• Partial donation only: The discrepancy in technical descriptions (Fortunato vs. Najordas as eastern boundary) proves only one-half was donated.
• Void donation: The 1919 donation is void for lack of public instrument required by the Old Civil Code.
• Impairment of legitime: The donation of the entire property impairs the legitime of Fortunato Doronio as compulsory heir.
• Alternative modes of acquisition: They acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription, tradition, or intestate succession over the portion they possess.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether OCT No. 352 written in Spanish is admissible without translation.
  • Whether the issue of impairment of legitime may be resolved in an action for reconveyance and damages.
  • Whether respondents are bound by the finality of the RTC decision in Petition Case No. U-920 and whether they can still challenge the validity of the donation.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the private deed of donation propter nuptias executed in 1919 is valid.
  • Whether respondents acquired ownership of one-half of the property by acquisitive prescription.

• Procedural:
  • OCT No. 352 is admissible. Failure to object to evidence at the time of offer waives the objection; evidence not objected to becomes part of the records and may be validly considered. Petitioners admitted the contents of OCT No. 352 in their comment on the formal offer of evidence.
  • Impairment of legitime must be resolved in special proceedings. Matters relating to settlement of estate, including advancement of property and impairment of legitime, partake of the nature of special proceedings requiring specific rules under the Rules of Court; they cannot be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action for reconveyance. The net estate must first be ascertained before legitime can be determined.
  • Validity of donation can be challenged. Petition Case No. U-920 was a proceeding quasi in rem (to quiet title); judgments in such proceedings bind only parties. Respondents were not impleaded as parties (only bulletin board notices were posted), thus they are not bound by res judicata. A void contract is inexistent from the beginning; the defense of illegality cannot be waived and may be raised even by third persons directly affected.
• Substantive:
  • The donation is void. Under the inter-temporal rule, the Old Civil Code applies to contracts executed in 1919. Article 633 of the Old Civil Code required donations of real property to appear in a public document; a private deed is void and conveys no title.
  • No acquisitive prescription. Property covered by a Torrens title (OCT No. 352) cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The Torrens system guarantees integrity of registration but cannot be used to perpetrate fraud or divest the lawful owner.

• Inter-Temporal Rule — Only laws existing at the time of contract execution apply unless the later statute is expressly intended to have retroactive effect. Here, the Old Civil Code (pre-1950) applied, requiring public instrument for donations of real property.
• Formal Requirements for Donation Propter Nuptias (Old Civil Code) — Under Articles 1328 and 633 of the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias of real property must be made in a public instrument specifically describing the property. A private instrument renders the donation void ab initio.
• Waiver of Objection to Evidence — Under Section 36, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, objection to evidence must be made immediately after the offer; failure to object constitutes waiver, and the evidence becomes part of the records.
• Quasi in Rem Proceedings — Actions to quiet title are quasi in rem; the judgment is conclusive only between the parties and does not prejudice persons not impleaded.
• Res Judicata — Requires: (1) decision on merits, (2) by competent court, (3) finality, and (4) identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. Lacking identity of parties, it does not apply.
• Void Contracts (Inexistent Contracts) — Under Article 1409 of the Civil Code, void contracts are inexistent from the beginning; the defense of illegality cannot be waived and may be raised by third persons directly affected.
• Jurisdiction over Settlement of Estate — Questions of advancement and impairment of legitime fall within the exclusive province of probate courts in special proceedings (Section 2, Rule 90, Rules of Court), not in ordinary civil actions.
• Indefeasibility of Torrens Title — A registered title cannot be defeated by adverse possession or prescription; however, registration does not create ownership but merely confirms it, and cannot be used to protect fraud or usurpation.

• "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."
• "The torrens system is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness of the certificate of registration, but it cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud against the real owner of the registered land."
• "Under the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias must be made in a public instrument in which the property donated must be specifically described."
• "A void contract is inexistent from the beginning. The right to set up the defense of its illegality cannot be waived."
• "Matters which involve settlement and distribution of the estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction."

• Natcher v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the distinction between civil actions and special proceedings; held that matters relating to settlement of estate (such as advancement) must be raised in special proceedings, not in ordinary civil actions for reconveyance.
• Valencia v. Locquiao — Applied the Old Civil Code to donations propter nuptias executed before 1950; established that real property donations require public instrument.
• Solis v. Barroso — Held that donation of real estate propter nuptias is void unless made by public instrument under the Old Civil Code.
• Manotok Realty, Inc. v. Court of Appeals — Held that the right to set up the nullity of a void contract is not limited to parties but extends to third persons directly affected.
• Foster-Gallego v. Galang — Cited for the principle that suits to quiet title are quasi in rem and judgments therein bind only parties.

• Old Civil Code, Art. 633 — Required gifts of real property to appear in a public document.
• Old Civil Code, Art. 1328 — Governed gifts propter nuptias under Title 2, Book 3.
• Civil Code, Art. 1409 — Void contracts are inexistent from the beginning; defense of illegality cannot be waived.
• Civil Code, Art. 752 — Limitation on donations (cannot give by donation more than what can give by will).
• Civil Code, Art. 961 — Intestate succession to legitimate relatives.
• Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 36 — Procedure for objection to evidence.
• Rules of Court, Rule 1, Sec. 3 — Definitions of civil action and special proceeding.
• Rules of Court, Rule 90, Sec. 2 — Court's authority to hear questions regarding advancements in estate proceedings.