G.R. No. L-22158, May 30, 1969
REV. CIPRIANO YTURRALDE (deceased), substituted by NENITA YTURRALDE, plaintiff-appellant, vs. DR. RAYMUNDO AZURIN, R.F.C. now DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF ANTIQUE, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Rev. Cipriano Yturralde (substituted upon his death by Nenita Yturralde) sought to annul a notarial deed of donation inter vivos executed by his sister, Carmen Yturralde, in favor of defendant-appellee Consuelo G. Azurin (wife of co-defendant Dr. Raymundo Azurin). The donation covered ten parcels of land in Sibalom, Antique. Plaintiff, a minister, had signed the deed as an instrumental witness and had his nephew Apolonio Yturralde also sign as a witness. Plaintiff alleged the execution was tainted with fraudulent misrepresentation, claiming the document was merely for property administration, not a donation. The lower court dismissed the complaint and declared the deed valid.
The background shows a close relationship between Carmen Yturralde and the Azurins. Consuelo G. Azurin was close to Carmen since childhood, calling her “Tia Carmen.” Dr. Azurin was the family physician. In 1952, Carmen went to Manila with Consuelo to pursue a claim for her deceased son’s USAFFE benefits, assisted by the Azurins’ son, Atty. Jose Azurin, which resulted in a lump sum and monthly pension for Carmen. On February 13, 1955, Carmen suffered a stroke, becoming partly paralyzed, and Dr. Azurin attended to her.
In early December 1955, plaintiff informed the Azurins that Carmen wanted to see them. They visited, and Carmen expressed her desire to donate her properties to Consuelo, fearing plaintiff, a gambler, would waste them if she predeceased him. Carmen wanted assurance that from the land’s produce, the Azurins would support her and plaintiff, construct a house for them, and maintain the family mausoleum. The Azurins accepted. This was discussed in plaintiff’s presence.
Dr. Azurin then had Atty. Esdras F. Tayco prepare the deed. The draft was read and explained to Carmen in Visayan, and she approved. On December 10, 1955, Dr. Azurin returned with the final deed. Plaintiff and his nephew Apolonio were present. Dr. Azurin again read, translated, and explained the document to Carmen, who affixed her thumbmark. Plaintiff signed as a witness and asked Apolonio to sign. On December 15, 1955, Atty. Tayco went to Carmen to have the deed ratified; he read and explained it, and she expressed agreement.
The deed recited considerations of love, affection, and gratitude for specific acts of kindness and assistance from the Azurins. It imposed conditions: the donee shall use the proceeds for Carmen’s and Cipriano’s care and sustenance during Carmen’s lifetime and for Cipriano if she died first; maintain the family mausoleum; and construct a house for Carmen and Cipriano. Acceptance was noted in the same deed.
After execution, plaintiff went to Manila at Dr. Azurin’s expense. The Azurins later took Carmen to the hospital and then to their home. Plaintiff later lived in a house constructed by the Azurins, who provided for his needs. Carmen lived with the Azurins until her death on January 23, 1960.
The Azurins later initiated court actions to secure the titles to the donated properties, which were held by spouses Mariano Vagilidad and Luz Manaquit due to loans obtained by plaintiff, and to annul a subsequent mortgage allegedly executed by Carmen over some properties.

ISSUE

Whether the notarial deed of donation inter vivos executed by Carmen Yturralde in favor of Consuelo G. Azurin is valid and binding, or whether it should be annulled on the ground of fraudulent misrepresentation (alleging it was merely a document for administration of properties).

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the lower court’s decision, declaring the deed of donation legal and valid. The donation was properly executed as a public document specifying the immovables donated and the conditions, with acceptance made in the same deed. The Court found no credible evidence of fraud or misrepresentation. Plaintiff’s testimony, as an interested party, was insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity and truthfulness of the notarial deed. The facts established that Carmen Yturralde, despite her physical condition, was mentally competent, understood the nature of the donation, and voluntarily executed it out of gratitude. The conditions imposed were clear and accepted by the donee. The donation complied with Article 749 of the Civil Code. Costs were imposed on plaintiff-appellant.