JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. ALIPIO N. CASILAN AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

Kapunan versus Casilan

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals in a dispute over a commercial lot in Tacloban City. The petitioners, Juanita Kapunan and her co-heirs, intervened in the action as alleged co-owners of the land and as heirs of the late Ruperto Kapunan, Senior. The respondent Alipio N. Casilan had bought the lot from Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo and sued to recover title and possession. The case matters because it settles two things a reviewee must know: that the old Spanish Notarial Law was repealed by the enactment of Act Number 496, and that a donation of real property is perfected once the donor learns of the donee's acceptance, even where the acceptance appears in the deed of gift itself and is signed on another date and in another place.

Procedural History

Alipio N. Casilan filed the action in the Court of First Instance of Leyte against Concepcion Kapunan de Salcedo, Iluminada Fernandez Vda. de Kapunan, and Marita Antonia Salcedo. The Kapunan children intervened as co-owners and as heirs of their late father. On March 31, 1950, after hearing, the trial court, Judge Hipolito Alo presiding, rendered judgment declaring Casilan the owner of the property and ordering the defendants and intervenors to deliver possession to him, and it dismissed the complaint in intervention. On motions for reconsideration, the same court, through Judge Jose S. Rodriguez, in a resolution dated May 30, 1950, reconsidered its decision and declared the sale by Concepcion K. Salcedo in favor of Casilan null and void. Casilan appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and awarded the land to him. Hence this petition for review.

Facts

On October 2, 1935, the spouses Ruperto Kapunan, Senior, and Iluminada Fernandez de Kapunan donated the commercial lot to their daughter Concepcion K. Salcedo, who accepted the donation in the same document. The deed was acknowledged on the same date before Notary Public Mateo Canonoy, who was the donors' son-in-law and the donee's brother-in-law. The property, however, remained in the possession of the donors.

On December 23, 1939, Concepcion K. Salcedo donated the same property to her daughter Marita Antonia Salcedo, then a minor. The donee's grandmother, Iluminada Fernandez Vda. de Kapunan, acting guardian with whom the child was then living, accepted the donation in the minor's behalf. The acceptance was contained in the deed of donation itself, which was authenticated by the same Notary Public Mateo Canonoy.

On November 4, 1944, Concepcion Kapunan Salcedo and Alipio N. Casilan executed a deed of conditional sale, and she received 2,000 pesos as part of the purchase price, with a balance of 4,500 pesos to be paid within three years. Casilan knew that Concepcion had previously donated the property to her daughter, yet on June 14, 1945, he proceeded to buy the same land and paid the balance on the donor's assurance that the donation was not legal. The deed of sale was annotated in the Daily Book of the Register of Deeds of Leyte, but not on the original certificate of title, because Iluminada refused to deliver the duplicate certificate. Casilan's petition to compel her to surrender the transfer certificate was dismissed. In that proceeding, Concepcion gave a deposition on March 9, 1946, stating that she knew of her mother's acceptance of the donation in favor of Marita Antonia.

Issues

• Whether or not the deed of donation executed by the Kapunan spouses in favor of Concepcion K. Salcedo was inefficacious because the notary who acknowledged it was related to the parties within the fourth civil degree of affinity.
• Whether or not the donation in favor of the minor Marita Antonia Salcedo was null and void for want of authentic notice to the donor that the donation had been accepted.
• Whether or not the acceptance of that donation by the donee's grandmother was valid, she not having yet been appointed legal guardian at the time of the acceptance.

Applicable Provisions

Article 633 of the Civil Code of 1889 provides:

Article 633. In order that a donation of real property be valid it must be made by public instrument in which the property donated must be specifically described and the amount of the encumbrances to be assumed by the donee expressed. The acceptance must be made in the deed of gift or in a separate public writing; but it shall produce no effect if not made during the lifetime of the donor. If the acceptance is made by separate instrument, authentic notice thereof shall be given the donor, and this proceeding shall be noted in both instruments.

This is the provision that governs the formalities of the donation of realty and the acceptance that perfects it.

Article 623 of the old Civil Code, as discussed in the decision, provides that the donor's knowledge of the acceptance perfects the donation. It is the basis for holding that Concepcion's admitted knowledge of the acceptance cured any defect in the notice.

Article 626 of the old Civil Code, as discussed in the decision, requires that a donation to an incapacitated donee be accepted by his lawful representative. The Court construes it as applying only to onerous and conditional donations.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly ruled that the Spanish Notarial Law had been repealed by the enactment of Act Number 496. Speaking through the Court:

The old Spanish notarial law and system of conveyance was repealed in the Philippines and another and different notarial law and system became the law of the land with the enactment of Act No. 496.

The disqualification of the notary under the old Spanish law therefore did not affect the deed, and the donation to Concepcion stood.

On the second issue, the Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals. Under Article 633, a donation transfers title effectively if accepted with all the formalities required, through a public instrument with authentic notice to the donor, unless the acceptance is made in the deed of gift itself. Here the acceptance was made in the deed of gift itself, so notification in a constancia autentica, an authentic notice, was evidently not necessary. That the acceptance was made on another date and in another place did not matter, because the deed as worded implied a previous understanding among the parties, and the donor admittedly knew of the actual acceptance. Pursuant to Article 623 of the old Civil Code, her knowledge of the acceptance perfected the donation.

On the third issue, the Court held that the acceptance by the grandmother was valid. The rule on acceptance by a lawful representative applies only to onerous and conditional donations, where the donee may have to assume charges or burdens. In simple and pure donations, a formal acceptance is not important, for the donor acquires no right to be protected and the donee assumes no obligation. If a donation of realty to a minor may be accepted in his behalf by his mother, there is no reason why a simple and pure donation made by the mother herself in favor of her own minor daughter may not be validly accepted through the grandmother, the donee's acting guardian, who was later appointed legal guardian. Since the grandmother was appointed legal guardian before the deed of conditional sale, and there was no showing that the donation had been revoked before that appointment, the donation had been confirmed and impliedly ratified by the parties.

Doctrine

First, the old Spanish Notarial Law and system of conveyance were repealed in the Philippines by the enactment of Act Number 496, so the disqualification of a notary under that old law no longer invalidates a deed.

Second, under Article 633 of the Civil Code of 1889, a donation of real property is validly accepted when the acceptance is made in the deed of gift itself; authentic notice to the donor is required only where the acceptance is made by a separate instrument. Where the donor in fact knows of the acceptance, Article 623 of the old Civil Code perfects the donation.

Third, the requirement that a donation to an incapacitated donee be accepted by his lawful representative applies only to onerous and conditional donations; in a simple and pure donation, acceptance may be made by the donee himself or through an acting guardian.

Disposition

The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, declared the sale of the property in favor of Alipio N. Casilan null and void, and held the donation to Marita Antonia Salcedo valid, without costs, while allowing Casilan to recover what he had paid under the principle that no one shall be unjustly enriched at the expense of another.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that the old Spanish Notarial Law was repealed by Act Number 496, and that acceptance made in the deed of gift itself needs no authentic notice to the donor. Examiners use this case to test the formalities of donations of realty under the old Civil Code and the effect of the donor's knowledge of the acceptance.