Ortiz v. Basada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Bonifacio Yupo and Vicenta de Guerra executed a Deed of Donation inter vivos on April 19, 1940, donating three parcels of land, including the parcel in question, to their grandchildren, petitioners Pacita Ortiz and Cresencia Ortiz (and Alejandro Ortiz). The donation was made by public instrument and duly accepted by the donees. Alejandro Ortiz died during the Japanese occupation. On August 14, 1941, the donor spouses executed another notarial deed of donation of the same property in favor of Andres Basada, nephew of Vicenta de Guerra, conditioned upon Basada serving and taking care of the donors until their death. This donation was also accepted. In 1947, the Ortiz donees filed a revindicatory action against Basada, alleging usurpation of the land donated to them. Basada claimed ownership based on the revocation of the donation to the Ortizes. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Samar dismissed the complaint, upholding Basada's claim on the ground of abandonment and ingratitude by the Ortizes. The Court of Appeals, while holding that the donation to the Ortizes was perfected and should stand until revoked in proper proceedings, affirmed the dismissal. The CA reasoned that the donors had reserved possession and use of the property, inferring this from the Ortizes' possession until the donors left, and Basada's subsequent possession after the donation to him. The CA concluded that the recovery of possession by the Ortizes was premature as one of the donors was still living and should have been included in the case. The Petition: Petitioners Pacita and Cresencia Ortiz sought a review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the CA's conclusion regarding the reservation of possession and the prematurity of their action was unwarranted.
Issue(s)
Whether the donation inter vivos in favor of the petitioners Ortiz was perfected and vested ownership and possession in them. Whether the subsequent donation to respondent Andres Basada conferred any valid right over the property. Whether the continued possession of the donors after the donation necessarily implied a reservation of usufruct or possession, rendering the donees' action for recovery premature.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Court of First Instance, ordering respondent Andres Basada to restore possession of the land to petitioners Cresencia and Pacita Ortiz. The case was remanded for assessment of damages.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the donation inter vivos in favor of the petitioners Ortiz was perfected and vested ownership and possession in them: The Court held that the donation inter vivos, executed through a public instrument and duly accepted by the donees, was perfected and vested ownership and possession in the Ortizes. The execution of a public instrument is a recognized mode of delivery (tradition) of land under the Civil Code. The donation was on its face absolute and unconditional, and the deed contained no reservation of usufruct or possession in favor of the donors. The absence of any express reservation in the deed indicated that none was intended. Therefore, the donees acquired not only ownership but also possession of the donated property from the time of the execution of the public instrument. On whether the subsequent donation to respondent Andres Basada conferred any valid right over the property: The Court ruled that the subsequent donation of the property to respondent Basada conferred no right whatsoever over the property as against the former donees, the Ortizes. Since the Ortizes had already been vested with ownership and attendant possession since 1940, the donors could no longer validly donate the same property to Basada in 1941. The donation to Basada was thus ineffective insofar as it purported to convey rights over the property already owned by the Ortizes. On whether the continued possession of the donors after the donation necessarily implied a reservation of usufruct or possession, rendering the donees' action for recovery premature: The Court found the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the donors had reserved possession and use of the property, making the Ortizes' action premature, to be unwarranted. The mere fact that donors remained in the property after donating it is susceptible of various explanations and does not necessarily imply that possession or usufruct was excluded from the donation. The donation was absolute and unconditional on its face, and the law requires that any charges or reservations be expressly stated in the deed. In the absence of such express reservation, the presumption is that the donation included both ownership and possession. Consequently, the Ortizes, as vested owners since 1940, were entitled to recover possession.
Main Doctrine
The execution of a public instrument of donation of land, coupled with the donee's acceptance, perfects the donation and vests ownership and possession in the donee, unless the contrary is expressly stated or inferable from the deed. The mere continued possession by the donor does not necessarily imply exclusion of usufruct or possession from the donation.