PAJARILLO vs.

IAC (1989)

The purpose of the formal requirement is to insure that the acceptance of the donation
is duly communicated to the donor. 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.

FACTS: Perfecta Balane de Cordero died intestate in 1945 and leaving a tract of 28 hectares of
land with buildings and improvements in the Quezon Province. Perfecta’s siblings Juana and
Felipe executed a public instrument entitled “ Extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the
decease Perfecta Balane de Cordero.” In it they disposed that in according to Perfecta’s wishes
and in consideration of love and affection, the said property be donated to private respondent
Salud Suterio de Matias, Perfecta’s niece, who will assume the encumbrance/obligation to the
Philippine National Bank in the amount of 1,000. In the same document, the donee accepted the
donation in a public instrument. The instrument was never registered nor the title transferred
to Salud’s name although she immediately took possession of the land. Sometime in 1951,
Salud transferred the possession of the land to her mother Juana, who was then staying with
her brother Claudio and his family. During the period they were occupying the land, Claudio
paid realty taxes thereon. On May 25, 1956, Juana executed a deed of absolute sale conveying
the land to Claudio. Two years later, Claudio had the land registered in his name. Claudio died
in 1961 and his mother in 1963. On June 30, 1965, the private respondents Salud and Pedro
Matias filed a complaint for the reconveyance of the property on the ground that the deed of
sale in favour of Claudio was fictitious and the registration in his name was null and void. Salud
claimed that no compensation was paid by Claudio and that the transaction was deliberately
concealed from her by her brother and the defendants. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the donation is valid

 
RULING: YES. It is true that there is nothing in either of the two instruments showing that
Salud made authentic notice of the acceptance to Felipe. While the first instrument contains the
statement that “the donee does hereby accept this donation and does hereby express her
gratitude for the kindness and liberality of the donor,” Felipe and Juana were the only
signatories thereof. That was in fact the reason for separate instrument of 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 form. 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. Here, 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 acknowledged by Juana.