FELOMINA ABELLANA, petitioner, G.R. No.

160488
vs. September 3, 2004
SPOUSES ROMEO PONCE, et al., respondents.

Facts:
Felomina Abellana is the aunt of respondent Lucila Ponce. On July 15, 1981,
Felomina bought a parcel of agricultural land which she intended to give to her niece,
Lucila. Because of this, the deed of sale showed that it was Lucila wwho bought the
land. However, Felomina remained in possession and developed the same land and
continued paying real property taxes relative to it. Meanwhile the relationship of the aunt
and niece turned sour, as the latter even threatened Felomina physically and has
become disrespectful. Because of this development, Felomina led a case for revocation
of implied trust to recover the property and its legal title over it. On August 28, 2000, the
trial court rendered a decision holding that an implied trust existed between Felomina
and Lucila, such that the latter is merely holding the lot for the benefit of the former. It
thus ordered the conveyance of the subject lot in favor of Felomina. On appeal, the
Court reversed the lower court’s decision and said that Felomina wasn’t able to prove
an implied trust.

Issue:
Whether or not there was implied trust in the case at bar.

Court Ruling and Doctrine:

The Supreme Court ruled that it was Felomina and not Lucila who truly owned
the parcel of land. The lone testimony of Felomina is sufficient to prove her claim if it is
credible. The presentation of the brother of the seller who witnessed Felomina as the
real buyer and paid the purchase price, debunks the claim of Lucila. In the instant case,
a donation of an immovable was effected NOT on a public instrument as required by
law. Because it was only an oral donation, it is thus void. Unlike ordinary contracts
(which are perfected by the concurrence of the requisites of consent, object and cause
pursuant to Article 1318 of the Civil Code), solemn contracts like donations are
perfected only upon compliance with the legal formalities under Articles 748 and 749.
Otherwise stated, absent the solemnity requirements for validity, the mere
intention of the parties does not give rise to a contract. Hence, Felomina can still
recover title from Lucila. Dispensation of such solemnities would give rise to anomalous
situations where the formalities of a donation and a will in donations inter vivos, and
donations mortis causa respectively, would be done away with when the transfer of the
property is made in favor of a child or one to whom the donor stands in loco parentis.
Such a scenario is clearly repugnant to the mandatory nature of the law on donation.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED and the June 16,
2003 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 69213 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The August 28, 2000 decision of the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City,
Branch 2, in Civil Case No. 4270, is REINSTATED.