Three essential elements of a donation:
1. Reduction in the patrimony of the donor
2. Increase in the patrimony of the donee
3. Intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi
It is also required that the donation be made in a public document and that its acceptance be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, which has to be recorded as well.
FACTS:
David Rey Guzman, a natural-born American citizen, is the son of the spouses Simeon Guzman (naturalized American) and Helen Meyers Guzman (American citizen). In 1968, Simeon died leaving to his heirs, Helen and David, an estate consisting of several parcels of land in Bulacan.
In 1970, Helen and David executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate, dividing and adjudicating to themselves all of the property, and registered it to the RD a year after.
In 1981, Helen executed a Deed of Quitclaim, assigning, transferring and conveying her ½ share of the properties to David. But since it was not registered, she executed another Deed of Quitclaim to confirm the first.
In 1994, Atty. Batongbacal wrote the OSG andfurnished it with documents showing that David’s ownership of ½ of the estate was defective. He argued that Art. XII of the Constitution only allows Filipinos to acquire private lands in the country. The only instances when a foreigner may acquire private property are by hereditary succession and if he was formerly a natural-born citizen who lost his Filipino citizenship. Moreover, it contends that the Deeds of Quitclaim executed by Helen were really donations inter vivos.
Republic filed with RTC a Petition for Escheat praying that ½ of David’s interest be forfeited in its favor. RTC dismissed. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a donation inter vivos
HELD: NO.
Not all the elements of a donation are present. The transfer of the properties by virtue of a Deed of Quitclaim resulted in the (1) reduction of her patrimony as donor and the (2) consequent increase in the patrimony of David as donee. However, Helen’s (3) intention to perform an act of liberality in favor of David was not sufficiently established. The 2 Quitclaims reveal that Helen intended to convey to her son certain parcels of land and to re-affirm it, she executed a waiver and renunciation of her rights over these properties. It is clear that Helen merely contemplated a waiver of her rights, title, interest over the lands in favor of David, not a donation. She was also aware that donation was not possible.
Moreover, the essential element of acceptance in the proper form and registration to make the donation valid is lacking. The SPA executed by David in favor of Atty. Abela was not his acceptance, but an acknowledgment that David owns the property referred to and that he authorizes Atty. Abela to sell the same in his name. Further, there was nothing in the SPA to show that he indeed accept the donation.
However, the inexistence of a donation does not make the repudiation of Helen in favor David valid. There is NO valid repudiation of inheritance as Helen had already accepted her share of the inheritance when she, together with David, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate, dividing and adjudicating between them all the properties. By virtue of that settlement, the properties were registered in their names and for 11 years, they possessed the land in the concept of owner. Thus, the 2 Quitclaims have no legal force and effect. Helen still owns ½ of the property.
