G.R. No. 130115; July 16, 2008
FELIX TING HO, JR., MERLA TING HO BRADEN, JUANA TING HO & LYDIA TING HO BELENZO, Petitioners, vs. VICENTE TENG GUI, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners, siblings Felix Ting Ho, Jr., Merla Ting Ho Braden, Juana Ting Ho, and Lydia Ting Ho Belenzo, filed an action for partition against their brother, respondent Vicente Teng Gui, concerning a parcel of land and its improvements in Olongapo City. They alleged these properties formed part of the intestate estate of their deceased father, Felix Ting Ho, Sr., and were merely held in trust by the respondent because their Chinese father was constitutionally disqualified from owning land. They sought equal partition.
The respondent claimed ownership, asserting he acquired the buildings from Victoria Cabasal and Gregorio Fontela, who had purchased them from Felix Ting Ho, Sr. in 1958. He further secured a Miscellaneous Sales Patent and an Original Certificate of Title (OCT No. P-1064) for the land in his name in 1978. The trial court found the 1958 sales to be simulated but, applying Article 1471 of the Civil Code, presumed they constituted a valid donation from father to eldest son. It thus dismissed the partition suit.

ISSUE

Whether the simulated sales of the properties can be deemed a valid donation to the respondent, thereby excluding them from the estate of the deceased spouses.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court. The legal logic is clear: while Article 1471 of the Civil Code allows a simulated sale to be shown as a donation, this conversion is not automatic and requires positive, convincing proof of the donor’s intent. The trial court erred in merely assuming the simulated transactions were intended as a donation based solely on the familial relationship. The respondent failed to present any evidence, such as a deed or clear acts of the deceased, demonstrating an actual donative intent to convey the properties exclusively to him. Consequently, the simulated sales produced no legal effect of transfer. Therefore, the subject improvements, along with the land acquired via sales patent (which became private property upon issuance of the patent), rightfully form part of the conjugal estate of the late spouses Felix Ting Ho, Sr. and Leonila Cabasal. As compulsory heirs, the petitioners are entitled to their four-fifths (4/5) share thereof, and the action for partition is proper. The respondent’s title over the land, while indefeasible, does not bar the partition of the estate’s properties, which includes both the land and the improvements.