G.R. No. 112796 March 5, 1998
TITO R. LAGAZO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO CABANLIT, respondents.

FACTS

Catalina Jacob Vda. de Reyes, the grandmother of petitioner Tito R. Lagazo, was an awardee of a lot (Lot 8W, Block 6, Psd-135534) in the Monserrat Estate, Manila. On January 30, 1985, she executed in Canada a Deed of Donation over the lot in favor of Lagazo. The deed stated the consideration was “love and affection” and “an act of liberality and generosity.” After the donation, Lagazo checked the property’s status, found it was delinquent, and paid the installment arrearages and remaining balance. He also had the property declared in Catalina’s name. Lagazo later sought to recover possession of the property from respondent Alfredo Cabanlit, who claimed ownership through a series of deeds: a Deed of Absolute Sale (1977) and a Deed of Assignment (1980) from Catalina in favor of Eduardo Español, and a Deed of Assignment (1982) from Español in his favor. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of Lagazo, finding his version more credible. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the donation was void due to Lagazo’s failure to show he accepted the donation in a separate instrument, and that the donation was simple, not onerous, despite his payments.

ISSUE

1. Whether the donation was simple or onerous.
2. Whether the donation was complete, valid, and subsisting despite the alleged lack of formal communication of acceptance.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals Decision.
1. The donation was a simple or pure donation, not an onerous one. The Deed of Donation explicitly stated the cause was “love and affection” and “an act of liberality and generosity,” with no burdens, charges, or conditions imposed on the donee. The payments made by Lagazo for the arrearages and balance were his voluntary acts, not obligations imposed by the donor as a condition for the donation. Under Article 733 of the Civil Code, onerous donations are governed by contract rules, but since this donation was simple, the formalities for donations under Article 749 apply.
2. The donation was not complete, valid, and subsisting. For donations of immovable property, Article 749 of the Civil Code requires acceptance to be made in the same deed or in a separate public instrument, and the formal notice of the acceptance to the donor is necessary for its perfection. Here, while Lagazo executed a separate “Deed of Acceptance” on February 18, 1985, there was no proof this acceptance was ever formally communicated to the donor, Catalina Jacob. His subsequent acts of paying the amortizations and asserting his right did not constitute the formal notice required by law. Therefore, the donation was not perfected and was null and void. Consequently, Lagazo had no right to recover possession of the property from Cabanlit. The Court also found no basis to award attorney’s fees to Lagazo.