G.R. No. 110644 October 30, 1998
THE HEIRS OF SALUD DIZON SALAMAT, represented by Lucio Salamat and Danilo Salamat, VALENTA DIZON GARCIA, represented by Raymundo D. Garcia, Jr. as Attorney-in-Fact, THE HEIRS OF ANSELMA REYES DIZON, represented by Catalina Dizon Espinosa, petitioners,

vs.
NATIVIDAD DIZON TAMAYO, represented by Angela R. Dizon, THE HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO DIZON, represented by Maria Dizon Jocson, respondents.

FACTS

Agustin Dizon died intestate on May 15, 1942, leaving five children: Eduardo, Gaudencio, Salud, Valenta, and Natividad. Among his properties was a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, covered by OCT No. 10384. Eduardo sold his hereditary rights to Salud on January 8, 1944, and Gaudencio sold his to Salud on June 2, 1949. In 1987, petitioners filed an action for compulsory judicial partition of Agustin Dizon’s estate. Respondent Natividad Dizon Tamayo refused, claiming her father orally donated the subject lot to her in 1936 with the other heirs’ conformity. She presented a private document of conformity allegedly signed by Eduardo in 1936, but petitioners questioned its authenticity due to unexplained erasures and alterations. The trial court ruled in favor of respondent, ordering partition but adjudicating the subject lot to Natividad. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Eduardo’s signed statement showed an oral donation occurred.

ISSUE

Whether the subject parcel of land (Lot 2557, Cad. 304-D, covered by OCT No. 10384) forms part of the estate of Agustin Dizon or was validly donated to respondent Natividad Dizon Tamayo.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The subject lot belongs to the estate of Agustin Dizon. The alleged oral donation in 1936 is invalid under Article 749 of the Civil Code, which requires donations of immovable property to be made in a public document. The private document presented by respondent, marred by unexplained alterations (e.g., the year “36” superimposed over “56” and signatures dated 1951), does not qualify as a valid ancient document and cannot substantiate the donation. Furthermore, even assuming an oral donation occurred, respondent cannot acquire ownership by prescription. As a co-heir and co-owner, her possession was not adverse but in trust for the other co-owners. She performed no clear and unequivocal acts of repudiation communicated to the other co-owners. The tax declaration in her name is not conclusive evidence of ownership. The lot is declared part of Agustin Dizon’s estate, subject to partition, with mutual accounting for benefits and expenses among the heirs.