Patenia-Kinatac-an vs. Patenia-Decena

A donation of immovable property executed in 2002 remains valid despite procedural defects in notarization—specifically the failure of parties to sign the notarial register—where the governing law at the time of execution (the Revised Administrative Code) did not impose such requirement, and the subsequent 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice introducing the requirement cannot be applied retroactively to impair vested rights or work injustice.

Spouses Ramiro and Amada Patenia owned a 9,600-square meter lot situated in Magugpo, Tagum City, Davao del Norte, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-168688. Following their deaths, their children (petitioners) discovered that the title had been cancelled pursuant to a Deed of Donation dated January 18, 2002, purportedly executed by the spouses in favor of their other children (respondents). The respondents maintained that the donated property formed part of a larger 30,644-square meter ancestral parcel which their parents had instructed Ramiro, as the eldest child, to distribute among his siblings.

• The Property: Spouses Ramiro and Amada Patenia owned a 9,600-square meter lot in Magugpo, Tagum City, Davao del Norte, registered under TCT No. T-168688.
• The Alleged Donation: On January 18, 2002, the spouses purportedly executed a Deed of Donation in favor of respondents Enriqueta Patenia-Decena, Eva Patenia-Maghuyop, Ma. Yvette Patenia-Lapined Abo-Abo, Gil A. Patenia, Elsa Patenia Ioannou, and Editha Patenia Baranowski, resulting in the cancellation of TCT No. T-168688.
• Respondents' Version: Respondents claimed that the donated property was part of a larger 30,644-square meter parcel owned by their parents, and that Ramiro had been entrusted by their parents to divide and distribute the land among his siblings; the deed merely formalized this distribution.
• Action for Annulment: After the deaths of Spouses Patenia, petitioners (the spouses' other children) discovered the donation and filed Civil Case No. 4241 before the RTC, alleging that their parents' signatures were forged and that the donation was inofficious, impairing their legitimes as compulsory heirs.
• Trial Court Findings: The RTC dismissed the complaint on August 11, 2015, finding that petitioners failed to present preponderant evidence of forgery or that the donated property constituted the decedents' entire estate such that the donation would impair legitimes.
• Appellate Proceedings: Petitioners appealed to the CA, specifically arguing that the donation was void because the notary public failed to require the parties to sign the notarial register. The CA affirmed the RTC, ruling that while defective notarization strips a document of its public character, reducing it to a private instrument, the deed was duly authenticated by the testimony of notary public Atty. Dagooc and respondent Eva Patenia Maghuyop, who confirmed their presence during execution.

• Inofficiousness: Petitioners maintained that the donation impaired their legitimes as compulsory heirs, arguing that the evidence established the donated property was the sole remaining asset of the decedents at the time of their deaths.
• Defective Notarization: Petitioners argued that the donation was void ab initio because the notary public failed to require the parties to sign the notarial register, constituting a fatal defect that prevented the deed from qualifying as a public instrument under Article 749 of the Civil Code.

• Adequacy of Evidence: Respondents countered that petitioners failed to substantiate claims of forgery and inofficiousness with preponderant evidence, and that the concurrent factual findings of the RTC and CA should be respected.
• Validity of Notarization: Respondents argued that the absence of signatures in the notarial register did not invalidate the donation, asserting that the deed was duly acknowledged before a notary public and remained binding between the parties.

• Retroactivity of Notarial Rules: Whether the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which require parties to sign the notarial register, may be applied retroactively to invalidate a donation executed in 2002 under the Revised Administrative Code which contained no such requirement.
• Jurisdictional Limitations: Whether the Supreme Court may review factual findings of the RTC and CA regarding the inofficiousness of the donation in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.

• Retroactivity of Notarial Rules: The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice cannot be applied retroactively to invalidate the donation. The governing law at the time of the deed's execution on January 18, 2002, was the Revised Administrative Code (Act No. 2711), specifically Sections 245 and 246, which mandated notaries to record instruments in their registers but contained no requirement for parties to sign such registers. The requirement for parties to sign the notarial register was introduced only in Section 3, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC), which took effect on July 6, 2004. Applying this new requirement retroactively would impair vested rights and work injustice, contrary to the principle that procedural laws operate prospectively absent express provision or compelling equitable considerations.
• Validity Despite Alleged Defect: The donation remained valid as a public instrument compliant with Article 749 of the Civil Code. While defective notarization generally strips a document of its public character, reducing it to a private instrument requiring preponderance of evidence for proof of execution, the alleged defect (failure to sign the register) did not exist under the applicable law in 2002. The notary public and a witness testified to their presence during execution, satisfying the requirements of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Jurisdictional Limitations: The Court declined to disturb the factual findings regarding the inofficiousness of the donation. The determination of whether the donation impaired legitimes requires an evaluation of the decedents' total estate at the time of death—a question of fact beyond the ambit of Rule 45 where the RTC and CA speak as one in their findings, and none of the recognized exceptions to the general rule apply.

• Formal Requirements for Donation of Immovables: Article 749 of the Civil Code requires that donations of immovable property be made in a public instrument specifying the property donated and the value of any charges. Unlike ordinary contracts perfected by consent, object, and cause, donations are solemn contracts valid only upon compliance with these legal formalities; absent such solemnity, mere intention and concurrence do not give rise to a valid contract.
• Effect of Defective Notarization: A defective notarization strips a document of its public character and reduces it to a private instrument, thereby dispensing with the presumption of regularity and requiring preponderance of evidence to establish validity. However, the specific requirements for valid notarization are determined strictly by the law in force at the time of execution.
• Non-Retroactivity of Procedural Laws: Procedural laws, including rules on notarial practice, apply prospectively to pending actions unless the statute expressly excepts them, or their application would impair vested rights, work injustice, or involve intricate due process problems. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which introduced the requirement for parties to sign the notarial register, cannot invalidate instruments executed in 2002 under the Revised Administrative Code which contained no such requirement.

• "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." — Establishes that donations, as solemn contracts, require strict compliance with formal requirements.
• "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 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice." — Determines that the Revised Administrative Code did not require party signatures in the notarial register.
• "Indeed, the new rules cannot be given retroactive effect if they would work injustice or impair vested rights." — Reaffirms the principle against retroactive application of procedural laws that would prejudice substantive rights.

• Abellana v. Spouses Ponce, 481 Phil. 125 (2004) — Cited for the rule that an oral donation of real property is void and an action to declare its inexistence does not prescribe.
• Sumipat v. Banga, 480 Phil. 187 (2004) — Referenced to establish that a donation is void where the donees' acceptance is not manifested in the deed itself or a separate document.
• Heirs of Pedro Alilano v. Atty. Examen, 756 Phil. 608 (2015) — Applied to determine that the law governing notarization is that in force at the time of signing; used to distinguish the Spanish Notarial Law, Revised Administrative Code, and 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Tan, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 424 Phil. 556 (2002) — Cited for the exceptions to the rule that procedural laws are applicable to pending actions, specifically where retroactivity would impair vested rights or work injustice.
• Gotan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257 (2017); Heirs of Teresita Villanueva v. Heirs of Petronila Suquia Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172 (2017); Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission, 596 Phil. 858 (2009) — Invoked to emphasize the limited jurisdiction of Rule 45 petitions to questions of law and the conclusiveness of factual findings when trial and appellate courts agree.

• Article 749, Civil Code — Mandates that donations of immovable property must be made in a public instrument specifying the property and charges; acceptance may be in the same deed or separate public document but must occur during the donor's lifetime.
• Sections 245 and 246, Revised Administrative Code (Act No. 2711) — Required notaries to maintain notarial registers and record instrument details chronologically, but did not require parties to sign the register.
• Section 3, Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Introduced the requirement that principals and witnesses sign or affix thumbmarks to the notarial register at the time of notarization; held not applicable to transactions executed prior to its effectivity.
• Article 1318, Civil Code — States that the requisites of contracts are consent, object, and cause; distinguished from solemn contracts like donations which require additional formalities.

Peralta, C.J., Caguioa, Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ.