Quilala vs. Alcantara

A notarized deed of donation is a public instrument in its entirety and remains valid despite the donee's omission from the notarial acknowledgment, provided the acceptance is explicitly set forth within the deed. Additionally, the requirement under the Property Registration Decree that parties sign on the left margin of each page is merely directory; signing on the opposite margin substantially complies with the purpose of authentication.

Catalina Quilala executed a two-page deed of donation inter vivos over a parcel of land in favor of Violeta Quilala. The first page contained the donation terms and an explicit acceptance clause, signed by the donor, donee, and two witnesses at the bottom. The second page contained the notarial acknowledgment, which mentioned only the donor. On this second page, the donor and one witness signed the left margin, while the donee and the other witness signed the right margin. Following the deaths of Catalina and Violeta, respondents, claiming to be Catalina's surviving relatives, sought to nullify the donation on the ground that Violeta's acceptance was not made in a public instrument.

• The Donation and Its Execution: On February 20, 1981, Catalina Quilala donated a 94-square-meter parcel of land to Violeta Quilala. The deed explicitly stated that the donee "receives and accepts the gift." The donor, donee, and two instrumental witnesses signed the first page. On the second page, containing the acknowledgment, the notary public certified that only Catalina Quilala personally appeared and acknowledged the instrument. The notary noted that the pages were signed by Catalina and her witnesses on the left margin of page two, but Violeta and the other witness actually signed the right margin.
• Registration and Subsequent Deaths: The deed was registered, and a new title was issued in Violeta's name. Catalina died on November 7, 1983, and Violeta died on May 22, 1984. Petitioner Ricky Quilala claims to be Violeta's surviving son.
• The Challenge to the Donation: Respondents, as Catalina's first cousins, executed an extrajudicial settlement of her estate and filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of the donation and cancellation of title. The trial court nullified the donation, finding that Violeta's acceptance was not acknowledged before a notary public, rendering it a mere private instrument. The trial court also noted a lack of evidence proving Violeta was Catalina's legitimate daughter, finding instead that SSS records identified her as an adopted child without proof of legal adoption.

• Registrability of the Deed: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the deed of donation inter vivos is not registrable.
• Filiation of the Donee: Petitioner maintained that the appellate court erred in upholding the trial court's finding that Violeta Quilala is not the daughter of Catalina Quilala.

• Invalidity of Acceptance: Respondents contended that the donation was void because Violeta's acceptance was not made in a public instrument, as she failed to acknowledge it before the notary public and was not mentioned in the acknowledgment.
• Lack of Filiation: Respondents asserted that Violeta was not Catalina's legitimate daughter, as evidenced by Catalina's SSS records indicating Violeta was merely an adopted child without proof of legal adoption.

• Validity of Acceptance: Whether the donee's acceptance of a donation inter vivos is invalid for not being acknowledged before a notary public, thereby rendering the deed a mere private instrument.
• Compliance with Margin Signature Requirement: Whether the donee's signature on the right-hand margin, instead of the left-hand margin as prescribed by Presidential Decree No. 1529, invalidates the deed.
• Determination of Filiation: Whether the Supreme Court can resolve the issue of the donee's filiation to the donor in a petition for review.

• Validity of Acceptance: The donation was declared valid. A notarized instrument must be treated in its entirety; it cannot be partly public and partly private. The donee's explicit acceptance on the first page of the notarized deed constitutes acceptance in a public instrument, notwithstanding her omission from the notarial acknowledgment on the second page.
• Compliance with Margin Signature Requirement: The signature on the right margin substantially complies with the law. The requirement under Section 112, paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 to sign on the left margin is merely directory, intended to authenticate the pages and prevent falsification. Signing on the opposite margin serves this purpose.
• Determination of Filiation: The filiation issue cannot be resolved in this petition. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; such matters must be ventilated in appropriate probate or settlement proceedings. The donation remains subject to potential reduction for inofficiousness and collation.

• Unity of Public Instruments — A notarized document is a public instrument in its entirety and cannot be bifurcated into public and private portions. The omission of a party from the notarial acknowledgment does not convert their explicit acceptance within the notarized deed into an act set forth in a private instrument.
• Directory Nature of Margin Signature Requirement — The requirement under Section 112 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 that parties sign on the left margin of each page is merely directory. The intendment of the law is to ensure authentication of each page to prevent falsification; substantial compliance, such as signing on the right margin, fulfills this objective and validates the document.

• "The instrument should be treated in its entirety. It cannot be considered a private document in part and a public document in another part."
• "Simply put, the specification of the location of the signature is merely directory. The fact that one of the parties signs on the wrong side of the page does not invalidate the document."

• Duque v. Domingo, 80 SCRA 654 (1977) — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that a donation of an immovable must be made in a public instrument to be valid.
• Abellera v. Balanag, 37 Phil. 865 (1918) — Followed for the principle that the donor must know of the donee's acceptance for the donation to be perfected.

• Article 749, Civil Code — Requires that the donation of an immovable be made in a public instrument, specifying the property donated and the charges the donee must satisfy, and provides that acceptance may be made in the same deed or in a separate public document. Applied to uphold the donee's explicit acceptance within the notarized deed as sufficient, despite her absence from the acknowledgment.
• Section 112, Paragraph 2, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Prescribes the formal requirements for the registration of voluntary instruments, including acknowledgment before a notary public and the signing of each page on the left margin by the executing parties and witnesses. Interpreted as directory regarding the location of the margin signature, with substantial compliance deemed sufficient to authenticate the document.
• Articles 771, 752, 911, and 912, Civil Code — Govern the reduction of inofficious donations. Cited to emphasize that the validated donation remains subject to reduction if it impairs the legitime of compulsory heirs.

Davide, Jr., C.J.; Puno, Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ.