Pajarillo v.

CA

Facts:
There are three siblings, Perfecta Balane de Cordero, Jauna Balane de Suterio and Felipe Balane.
Perfecta died intestate, leaving a tract of land which consist of 28 hectares covered by TCT No. 4671.
Juana Balane de Suterio and Felipe Balane being sole heirs executed an extra-judicial settlement of the
estate of their deceased sister but included in the document that they had donated the property to Salud
Suterio de Matias following the request of their dead sister. Thereafter, Salud executed another public
instrument accepting the donation. Juana, mother of Salud, requested Salud that she need not register the
property under her name so that she can enjoy the fruits of the land while she is alive thus both
instruments were never registered but Salud together his mother and Claudio and his family immediately
took possession of the land however it was Claudio who was the one paying the realty taxes thereon.
While the intestate proceedings were instituted, the land donated to Salud was included in the inventory in
which Salud did not oppose nor interposed any objection. On May 25, 1956, Juana executed a deed of
absolute sale conveying the land to Claudio in consideration of 12,000.00 pesos. Claudio died in 1961 and
his mother on 1963 thus Salud filed complaint for the reconveyance of the property on the ground that the
deed of sale in favour of Claudio was fictitious and tis registration in his name was null and void. She
faulted the sale was procured by fraud and improper influence on her sick and aged mother. The
defendants (the wife and children of Claudio) raised prescription, estoppel and res judicata as defences.
The defendant also raised that the donation was defective for the acceptance was made in separate
document which was not noted in both documents as required by the civil code. The trial court ruled in
favour of the validity of the donation and annulled the deed of sale. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto.
Thus the petition.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the donation was defective in form because of the non-compliance with the
requirements of the law
2. Whether or not Salud is barred by prescription
Ruling:
1. No. It is true that there is nothing in either of the two instruments showing that authentic notice of
the acceptance was made by Salud to felipe. And while the first instrument contains the statement
that the done does hereby accept this donation and does hereby express her gratitude for the
kindness and liberality of the donor the only signatories thereof were Felipe and Juana. That was
in fact the reason for separate instrument f acceptance signed by Salud a month later.
A strict interpretation of art 633 of the old civil code, can lead to no other conclusion that on the
annulment of the donation for being defective in for. This would be in keeping with
the unmistakable language of art. 633. A literal adherence to the requirement of the law might
result not in justice to the parties but conversely a distortion of their intentions it is also a policy
of the court to avoid such an interpretation.
The purpose of the formal requirement is to insure that the acceptance of the donation is duly
communicated to the donor. In the case at bar, it is not even suggested that Juana was unaware of
the acceptance for she in fact confirmed it later and requested that the donated land be not

registered during her lifetime by Salud. The donation cannot be declared ineffective just because
there is no notation in the Extra-Judicial Settlement of donees acceptance that would be placing
too much stress on mere form over the substance. It would also be disregard the clear reality of
the acceptance of the donation as manifested in these separate instrument and as later
acknowledge and as latter acknowledged by Juana.
2. No. It is clear that Juana had no right to sell the land to Claudio because she was no longer its
owner, having previously donated it to her daughter. Salud, being a truster had every right to sue
for the recovery of the land for the reconveyance against Claudio;s heirs. The record shows that
while the land was registered in the name of Claudio, the complaint for reconveyance was filed in
1965 or still within the ten-year prescriptive period.