G.R. No. 254452, November 27, 2024
HEIRS OF FERDINAND ROXAS, NAMELY: ANGELA MARGARITA T. ROXAS, DYAN PAULA T. ROXAS, MICHAEL JUDE T. ROXAS, AND MARIA KATRINA T. ROXAS, PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF MELANIA ROXAS, NAMELY: MANUEL A. ROXAS, MARIA ROSARIO ROXAS-URETA, ALEXANDER A. ROXAS, SALOME ROXAS-PANTALEON, PAUL GERARDO ROXAS, ELAINE ROXAS GAMBOA, MA. IMELDA ROXAS-CRUZ, AND DAVID ANTHONY ROXAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Ferdinand A. Roxas purchased a parcel of land in Baguio City from Felicisima Garcia, with the purchase price paid by his mother, Melania Roxas. The deed of absolute sale indicated Ferdinand as the buyer, and the title was transferred to him. After the deaths of Ferdinand and Melania, the Heirs of Melania filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of the deed and Ferdinand’s title, claiming Melania was the true owner. The Heirs of Ferdinand claimed Ferdinand was the true owner, the lot having been given as a graduation gift, and invoked the presumed donation under Article 1448 of the New Civil Code. Relevant post-purchase facts include: Melania built a house on the lot used by the family; Melania paid real property taxes on the house declared in her name; Melania rented out a portion of the house; Ferdinand’s sibling Paul resided in the house, and Ferdinand’s attempts to evict him were unsuccessful due to Melania’s intervention; Ferdinand paid real property taxes on the lot; and the Heirs of Ferdinand possessed Ferdinand’s Transfer Certificate of Title.

ISSUE

Whether the presumption of a donation under Article 1448 of the New Civil Code (arising from a parent paying the purchase price for property conveyed to a child) is overturned by the donor’s subsequent acts of building on the property, paying taxes on the improvement, leasing it, and interfering with possession, and whether such a presumed donation must comply with the formalities for donations under Articles 748 and 749 of the New Civil Code.

RULING

The presumption of a donation under Article 1448 stands and is not overturned by the donor’s subsequent acts. Melania’s actions—building a house, paying taxes on the improvement, leasing a portion, and interfering in an ejectment—pertain only to the rights of possession, use, and fruits (attributes of ownership), not to ownership itself. These acts are not inconsistent with donative intent and do not negate the presumption. Furthermore, the presumed donation under Article 1448 does not require compliance with the formalities for donations under Articles 748 and 749 of the New Civil Code. The donee’s ownership is established by the presumption in Article 1448, which operates as a substantive rule, not a mere evidentiary presumption, and dispenses with the need for a formal deed of donation. The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia’s grant of the petition.