G.R. No. L-7307 May 19, 1955
PACITA ORTIZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and ANDRES BASADA, respondents.

FACTS

The spouses Bonifacio Yupo and Vicenta de Guerra donated a parcel of land in Lapinig, Samar, to their grandchildren, petitioners Pacita Ortiz, Cresencia Ortiz, and Alejandro Ortiz, through a public instrument executed on April 19, 1940. The donees accepted the donation. Alejandro Ortiz later died. On August 14, 1941, the same donor spouses executed another notarial deed donating the same property to their nephew, respondent Andres Basada, subject to the condition that he would serve and care for them until death. In 1947, the Ortiz petitioners filed an action to recover the land from Basada, who had entered and occupied it in 1946. Basada claimed the donation to the Ortizes had been revoked. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint, finding the Ortizes had abandoned the donors with ingratitude. The Court of Appeals held the donation to the Ortizes was duly perfected and the subsequent donation to Basada was not a proper revocation, but nevertheless dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the donors appeared to have reserved possession and usufruct, making the Ortizes’ action premature, especially since one donor was still alive.

ISSUE

Whether the donation to the Ortiz petitioners conveyed full ownership and possession such that their revindicatory action against the second donee, Basada, is valid and not premature.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The donation to the Ortizes via public instrument in 1940 was absolute and unconditional, and under the law (Civil Code of 1889, Art. 1463; new Civil Code, Art. 1498), the execution of a public instrument effects delivery (tradition) of the land, transferring both ownership and possession to the donees, absent any contrary stipulation. The deed contained no express reservation of usufruct or possession for the donors, which under the law (old Civil Code, Art. 633; new Civil Code, Art. 749) must be stated in the public instrument if intended. The donors’ continued possession after donation does not necessarily imply a reservation of usufruct. Therefore, the Ortizes acquired full rights in 1940, and the subsequent donation to Basada conferred no rights against them. The action for recovery of possession was not premature. The Court ordered Basada to restore possession to petitioners Pacita and Cresencia Ortiz, remanded the case for assessment of damages, and held Basada liable for costs, without prejudice to any lawful action for revocation the donors may have.