G.R. No. L-9197; October 22, 1914
HERMOGENA SANTOS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MIGUEL ROBLEDO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
On March 1, 1905, spouses Santiago Herrera and Basilia Tolentino executed a notarized instrument (Exhibit A) which, among other things, purported to donate a parcel of land with three warehouses to Hermogena Santos. The property was registered in the name of Santiago Herrera since August 1901, free from encumbrance. Hermogena Santos claimed she entered into possession and collected rents until January 28, 1913.

On that date, Miguel Robledo, a judgment creditor of Santiago Herrera, caused the sheriff to levy upon and subsequently sell the same property at public auction to satisfy Herrera’s debt. Robledo himself purchased the property on February 17, 1913. Hermogena Santos intervened, claiming ownership, but the sheriff proceeded with the sale after Robledo posted an indemnity bond.

Hermogena Santos filed an action for recovery of possession and damages against Robledo and the sheriff. She alleged the levy and sale were void as the property was hers by virtue of the donation. The defendants countered that the donation was void for non-compliance with legal formalities and was executed in fraud of creditors, specifically Robledo. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing Santos’s complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether the levy and sale of the property at the instance of Herrera’s creditor, Miguel Robledo, can prevail over the right of ownership claimed by Hermogena Santos by virtue of the donation from the spouses Herrera.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment, ruling against Hermogena Santos.

The Court held that the donation in favor of Hermogena Santos was null and void and could not prevail against the rights of the creditor, Miguel Robledo. The donation was invalid for the following reasons:

1. Non-compliance with Formal Requirements: The law (Article 633 of the Civil Code) requires that the acceptance of a gift must be made in a public instrument, either separate or within the deed of donation itself. The instrument (Exhibit A) did not show that the donation was accepted on behalf of the minor donee, Hermogena Santos, in the required public form. A mere verbal acceptance was insufficient.

2. Fraudulent Conveyance: The evidence indicated that the donation was made without proper consideration and for the purpose of defrauding the creditor, Miguel Robledo. The property remained registered in Santiago Herrera’s name from 1901 until its levy in 1913. The timing and circumstances of the donation, coupled with Herrera’s own testimony casting doubt on his knowledge of the gift clause in the separation instrument, supported the conclusion that the conveyance was intended to prejudice Robledo, in violation of Articles 643 and 1297 of the Civil Code.

Since the donation was void, the property rightfully remained an asset of the judgment debtor, Santiago Herrera. Therefore, the property was legitimately subject to levy and execution to satisfy his debt to Robledo. The Court found no error in the trial court’s decision.