DANGUILAN V. AIC (November 28, 1988)

FACTS:

A residential and farm lot in Cagayan owned by Dominggo Melad were being claimed by petitioner Felix Danguilan and respondent Apolonia Melad.

Apolonia contends that she acquired the property when Dominggo Melad sold it to her when she was just three years old in which her mother paid the consideration. She contends that she just moved out of the farm only when in 1946 Felix Danguilan approached her and asked permission to cultivate the land and to stay therein.

Dangguilan presented for his part 2 documents to prove his claim that the properties were given to him by Dominggo Melad through an onerous donation. The onerous part of the donation includes the taking care of the farm and the arrangement of the burial of Dominggo.

HELD:

The ruling should be in favor of Danguilan. The contention of Apolonia that the deed of donation is void because it was not made through a public document is of no merit. The deed was an onerous one and hence, it was not covered by the rule in Article 749 requiring donations of real properties to be effected through a public instrument. An onerous donation is effective and valid if it embraces the conditions that the law requires. Since it has been proven that Danguilan did the conditions in the onerous donation particularly the arrangement of Dominggo’s burial, the deed is deemed valid.

On the other hand, the deed of sale made in favor of Apolonia is suspicious. One may well wonder why the transfer was not made to the mother herself, who was after all the one paying for the lands. The averment was also made that the contract was simulated and prepared after Domingo Melad's death in 1945.

Even assuming the validity of the deed of sale, the record shows that the private respondent did not take possession of the disputed properties and indeed waited until 1962 to file this action for recovery of the lands from the petitioner. If she did have possession, she transferred the same to the petitioner in 1946, by her own sworn admission, and moved out to another lot belonging to her step-brother. In short, she failed to show that she consummated the contract of sale by actual delivery of the properties to her and her actual possession thereof in concept of purchaser-owner. Ownership does not pass by mere stipulation but only by delivery.