GR 185477; (December, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 185477 ; December 4, 2009
HERMINIO M. GUTIERREZ and ELISA A. GUTIERREZ-MAYUGA, Petitioners, vs. FLORA MENDOZA-PLAZA and PONCIANO HERNANDEZ, Respondents.
FACTS
Ignacio Mendoza acquired an unregistered parcel of land in 1916. In 1940, he executed a notarized deed of donation inter vivos, donating the property to his children from his second marriage, which included respondent Flora Mendoza-Plaza and Felisa Hernandez (mother of respondent Ponciano Hernandez). The deed was signed by witnesses, including Ignacio’s children from his first marriage, but was never registered. Respondents and their predecessors possessed the property thereafter. In 2006, petitioners, who are descendants of Ignacio’s first marriage, entered a portion of the land, constructed a house, and claimed ownership by virtue of succession.
Respondents filed an action for accion reivindicatoria, publiciana, and quieting of title. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of respondents, declaring them the lawful owners and ordering petitioners to vacate and demolish their structure. The Court of Appeals initially reversed this decision but later issued an Amended Decision reinstating the RTC’s ruling. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s decision which upheld the validity of the deed of donation and recognized respondents as the lawful owners of the subject property.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the validity and efficacy of the 1940 notarized deed of donation inter vivos. As a notarized document, it enjoys the presumption of regularity and carries full faith and credit upon its face. Petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption. The Court also applied the rule on ancient documents, the deed being over thirty years old, produced from proper custody, and free from alterations, thus requiring no further authentication.
The donation was deemed accepted, as the donees’ mother, Ignacia, accepted on their behalf in the same instrument, and their subsequent open possession constituted implied ratification. The Court ruled that ownership was transferred upon the delivery of the deed, and the non-registration of the donation did not invalidate it but merely affected its efficacy against third parties. Petitioners, being parties and successors to the donor, were bound by the deed. Their possession, being merely tolerated by the respondents, was characterized as possession in bad faith which does not ripen into ownership. Consequently, respondents were correctly declared the lawful owners, and petitioners were ordered to vacate and remove their structure.