Art. 737 Heirs of Sevilla vs.

Sevilla
Facts:
Filomena died intestate leaving her 8 children:
William, Peter, Felipe, Leopoldo, Rosa, Maria,
Luzvilla, and Jimmy. William, Jimmy, and Maria are
now survived by their respective spouses and
chidren. Filomena left 4 parcels of land. One of these
is the Parcel 1or known as Lot No. 653 which is the
subject of the controversy.
Lot No. 653 is the paraphernal property of
Filomena which she co-owned with her sisters,
Honorata and Felisa who were both single and
without issue. When Honorata died in 1982, her 1/3
undivided share in Lot No. 635 was transmitted to
her heirs, Felisa and the heirs of Filomena, who
thereby acquired the property in the proportion of
share each.
During the Lifetime of Felisa and Honorata, they
lived in the house of Filomena, together with their
nephew, Leopoldo and his family. Leopoldo attended
to the needs of his mother and his two aunts.
In 1988, Felisa died. Previous thereto, in 1985, she
executed a last will and testament devising her
share to Leopoldo and his wife. In 1986, she
executed another document denominated as
Donation Inter Vivos ceding to Leopoldo her
share in Lot No. 653, which was accepted by
Leopoldo in the same document.
In 1990, Felipe, Rosa, and the heirs of William
,Jimmy and Maria filed an annulment of the Deed of
Donation alleging that the same is tainted with fraud
because Felisa,who was then 81 years of age, was
seriously ill and of unsound mind at time of the
execution thereof.
Leopoldo, on the other hand, denied that there
was fraud and undue influence in the execution of
the questioned documents. He alleged that Felisa
was of sound mind at the time of the execution of
the assailed deeds and that she freely and
voluntarily ceded her undivided share in Lot No. 653
in consideration of Leopoldos and his familys love,
affection and services rendered in the past.
Issue: W/N the Donation Inter Vivos is valid?
Ruling:
Yes, it is valid.
Article 737 of the NCC provides that the
donors capacity shall be determined as of the time
of the making of the donation. Like any other
contract, an agreement of the parties is essential
and the attendance of vice consent renders contract
voidable.
It is well-settled rule that he who asserts, not
he who denies, must prove.
In the instant case, the self- serving testimony
of the other heirs are vague as to what acts of
Leopoldo constituted fraud and undue influence and
on how these acts vitiated Felisas consent. Fraud
and undue influence must be established by full,
clear, and convincing evidence otherwise the latters
consent must be presumed.
Moreover, the other heirs failed to show proof why
Felisa should be held incapable of exercising
sufficient judgment in ceding her share to Leopoldo.
As testified by the notary public who notarized the
Deed of Donation, Felisa confirmed to him her
intention to donate her share in Lot No. 635 to
Leopoldo. He stressed that though Felisa was old,
she was of sound mind and could talk sensibly .
Significantly, there is nothing in the record that
discloses even an attempt by the other heirs to rebut
said declaration of the notary public.