G.R. No. L-11970; March 22, 1918
FABIAN B. S. ABELLARA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. HERMENEGILDO BALANAG, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Fabian B. S. Abellara filed an action to eject nineteen defendants from his hacienda. He claimed ownership through a registered composition title originally in his father’s name and a subsequent deed of gift executed by his father in a public instrument in 1913. The defendants denied Abellara’s ownership and asserted prescriptive title to their respective occupied parcels. After the plaintiff presented his evidence, the trial court dismissed the complaint on two grounds: (1) the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish the precise location and extent of the lands occupied by each defendant, and (2) the plaintiff’s documentary evidence failed to prove his title because it did not show that he had accepted the donation in a public instrument and notified the donor as required by Article 633 of the Civil Code. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish his ownership over the hacienda due to non-compliance with the formal requisites for a valid donation of real property under the Civil Code.

RULING:
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, but solely on the second ground regarding the invalidity of the donation.

The Court held that for a donation of real property to be valid and for title to pass, strict compliance with Article 633 of the Civil Code is indispensable. The article requires: (1) the donation must be made in a public instrument; (2) the acceptance must be made during the donor’s lifetime, either in the same instrument or in a separate public instrument; and (3) if acceptance is made in a separate instrument, it must be communicated to the donor in an authentic manner, with a record of such proceeding in both instruments.

The plaintiff only presented the deed of gift (public instrument of donation) but failed to present evidence that he had accepted the donation in a public instrument and notified his father (the donor) of such acceptance. Consequently, the donation was not perfected, and title to the hacienda did not pass to the plaintiff. Without proof of ownership, he could not maintain the ejectment action.

The Court clarified that the first ground for dismissal cited by the trial court was erroneous. In an ejectment action, a plaintiff who proves title to an entire tract is entitled to a judgment for possession against a trespasser found on any part of it, even without proving the precise location and extent of the occupied parcel. The burden is on the defendant asserting prescriptive title to establish the specific area and extent of his claim.

The Court also denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial based on a newly executed public instrument of acceptance submitted on appeal. This acceptance occurred after the trial and judgment, and thus did not cure the fatal defect in his title at the time the action was filed and dismissed.

Judgment affirmed.