Duque v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Julia Duque, for herself and as natural guardian of her daughter Paz Domingo (of unsound mind), filed a complaint for reconveyance of Lot 1083 of the Malinta Estate, or in the alternative, to declare Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-25195 in the names of Potenciana, Amadeo, and Arsenio Duque (defendants) void, and to declare the plaintiffs absolute owners. The complaint alleged that Juana Duque, aunt of Julia and great-aunt of the defendants, purchased Lot 1083 in 1908 through her agent Faustino Duque. Faustino caused the Sale Certificate No. 1138 to be issued in his name with Juana's consent. In 1915, Faustino transferred the Sale Certificate to his brother Mariano Duque (father of the defendants) with Juana's alleged permission. Juana Duque allegedly possessed and paid for the lot until her death in 1928. In 1927, Juana verbally donated Lot 1083 to Julia Duque, who has since been in exclusive possession as beneficial owner. Mariano Duque died, and his children registered the lot under TCT No. T-19924 in 1957, and later under TCT No. T-25195 in 1959. Julia Duque's request for reconveyance was refused. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Bulacan dismissed the complaint. Julia Duque died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by her daughter Paz Domingo, with Marcosa Duque-Valenzuela as guardian ad litem. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the CFI decision, declaring Julia Duque the absolute owner, viewing the case as a verbal partition among heirs consented to by all, including Mariano Duque. The Petition: The defendants (petitioners herein) filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the claim of private respondents to enforce an implied trust over real property had prescribed or had been barred by laches. Whether the oral donation made in 1927 of Lot 1083, assuming its truth, was null and void. Whether the CA erred in presuming that Faustino Duque and Mariano Duque acted as agents of Juana Duque without sufficient evidence. Whether an implied trust over a real property covered by a Torrens title can be established by a mere tax declaration. Whether the CA erred in promulgating a decision premised on facts and issues not covered by the evidence and pleadings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed the civil case filed by the plaintiffs. The Court ruled that the alleged oral donation was void and that the claims were barred by prescription and laches.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the oral donation: The Court held that an oral donation of an immovable property is void. Citing Article 633 of the Spanish Civil Code and Article 749 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the Court emphasized that a donation of an immovable, to be valid, must be made in a public document, specifying the property and the charges the donee must satisfy. The alleged verbal donation in 1927 by Juana Duque to Julia Duque did not transfer any right over Lot 1083 to the donee because it was not made in a public document. On the theory of verbal partition: The Court found no adequate showing that Mariano Duque consented in 1927 to a verbal partition made by Juana Duque wherein she gave Lot 1083 to Julia Duque. The Court noted that the improbability of the alleged oral partition is heightened by the fact that Lot 1083 is registered land, and any transaction affecting it should be evidenced by a registerable deed. The subsequent issuance of TCT No. 7501 in Mariano Duque's name in 1931, after full payment of the purchase price, contradicted the claim of a partition in favor of Julia. On the existence of an implied trust: The Court found no sufficient evidence to establish an implied trust between Juana Duque and either Faustino Duque or Mariano Duque. Even if such a trust were assumed to exist, the Court ruled that the right of action upon it had prescribed. The complaint was filed in September 1966, 35 years after the issuance of TCT No. 7501 to Mariano Duque in 1931. The registration of an instrument in the Registry of Deeds constitutes constructive notice to the whole world, and discovery of fraud is deemed to have occurred at the time of registration. The issuance of TCT No. 7501 in 1931 commenced the effective assertion of adverse title for the purpose of the statute of limitations. On prescription and laches: The Court reiterated that an action on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the date the right of action accrued. The registration of TCT No. 7501 in 1931 served as constructive notice of repudiation of any alleged trust relationship. The alleged possession by the private respondents did not divest the petitioners, as registered owners, of their rights, as adverse possession under claim of ownership is ineffective against a Torrens title. On the agency of Faustino and Mariano Duque: The Court found it odd that Faustino Duque appeared as the purchaser in Sale Certificate No. 1138 if Juana Duque was the real purchaser. Furthermore, Juana Duque never took steps to have the land transferred in her name from 1909 until her death in 1928, despite Faustino transferring his rights to Mariano Duque in 1915. There was no sufficient evidence to show Juana Duque's consent to this transfer. The Court concluded that the theory of purchase by Juana Duque through an agent and subsequent donation to Julia Duque was supported only by testimonial evidence, which could not prevail over the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners.
Main Doctrine
An oral donation of an immovable property is void. Furthermore, claims based on implied trusts over registered land are subject to prescription and laches, especially when the registered title has been in the name of the defendants and their predecessors for a significant period, and the action is filed long after the issuance of the title.