Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
CaseDigset:Catalanv.Basa
You are here: Home / 2013 / August / Case Digset: Catalan v. Basa
1/3
7/21/2016
CaseDigset:Catalanv.Basa
Issue:
Whether or not Feliciano has the capacity to execute the donation
Whether or not the property donated to Mercedes and later on sold to her
children is legally in possession of the latter
Are laches and prescription should be considered in the case?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower court and the Court
of Appeals and denied the petition. A donation is an act of liberality whereby
a person disposes gratuitously a thing or right in favor of another, who
accepts it. Like any other contract, an agreement of the parties is essential.
Consent in contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be
intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it
should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. The parties intention must
be clear and the attendance of a vice of consent, like any contract, renders the
donation voidable. A person suffering from schizophrenia does not
necessarily lose his competence to intelligently dispose his property. By
merely alleging the existing of schizophrenia, petitioners failed to show
substantial proof that at the date of the donation, June 16, 1951, Feliciano
Catalan had lost total control of his mental facilities. Thus, the lower court
correctly held that Feliciano was of sound mind at that time and this
condition continued to exist until proof to the contrary was adduced. Since
the donation was valid. Mercedes has the right to sell the property to
whomever she chose. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to prove the
claim that Mercedes sale of property to her children was tainted with fraud or
falsehood. Thus, the property in question belongs to Delia and Jesus Basa.
The Supreme Court notes the issue of prescription and laches for the first
time on appeal before the court. It is sufficient for the Supreme Court to note
that even if it prospered, the deed of donation was still a voidable, not a void,
contract. As such, it remained binding as it was not annulled in a proper
action in court within four years.
Posted in Case Digest
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/08/casedigsetcatalanvbasa/
2/3
7/21/2016
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/08/casedigsetcatalanvbasa/
CaseDigset:Catalanv.Basa
3/3