G.R. No. 172804 ; January 24, 2011
GONZALO VILLANUEVA, represented by his heirs, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FROILAN and LEONILA BRANOCO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Gonzalo Villanueva (represented by his heirs) sued respondents Spouses Froilan and Leonila Branoco to recover a 3,492-square-meter parcel of land in Culaba, Leyte. Petitioner claimed ownership through a purchase in July 1971 from Casimiro Vere, who had bought the property from Alvegia Rodrigo in August 1970. Petitioner declared the property for tax purposes after acquisition. Respondents claimed ownership through a purchase in July 1983 from Eufracia Rodriguez, to whom Rodrigo had donated the property via a Deed of Donation executed on May 3, 1965. The Deed stated that Rodriguez had been in possession “in the concept of an owner” since May 21, 1962, and that if Rodriguez predeceased Rodrigo, the land would not revert to Rodrigo but would be inherited by Rodriguez’s heirs. It also stipulated that Rodriguez would give one-half of the land’s produce to Rodrigo during her lifetime. The trial court ruled for petitioner, declaring the Deed a donation mortis causa (testamentary) effectively revoked by Rodrigo’s subsequent sale to Vere. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the Deed was a donation inter vivos (taking effect during the donor’s lifetime), thus title passed to Rodriguez in 1965, making Rodrigo’s 1970 sale to Vere void for lack of title. Petitioner sought reinstatement of the trial court’s ruling or, alternatively, claimed ownership through acquisitive prescription.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s title over the property is superior to respondents’, which hinges on the juridical nature of the Deed of Donation between Rodrigo and Rodriguez—whether it is a donation inter vivos or a donation mortis causa (devise).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling that respondents hold superior title. The Deed of Donation is a donation inter vivos, not mortis causa. Key factors supporting this conclusion are: (1) The Deed stipulated that if the donee (Rodriguez) predeceased the donor (Rodrigo), the property would not revert to the donor but would pass to the donee’s heirs, indicating irrevocable transfer of naked title and waiving the donor’s right of reversion. (2) The donation was based on “love and affection” for services rendered, not the donor’s death. (3) The donee’s acceptance was contained in the Deed itself, which is necessary for donations inter vivos. (4) The donor reserved only a beneficial interest (usufruct) in the form of half the produce, not full ownership or control. (5) In case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed a donation inter vivos to avoid uncertainty of ownership. Consequently, title passed to Rodriguez upon the Deed’s execution in 1965. Rodrigo’s 1970 sale to Vere was void as she had no title to transfer, making Rodriguez’s 1983 sale to respondents valid. The Court rejected petitioner’s alternative claim of acquisitive prescription, noting petitioner failed to prove the required possession in good faith and with just title for ordinary prescription (10 years) and had not possessed the property for the 30 years required for extraordinary prescription.