THE HEIRS OF MARCELINO

DORONIO, NAMELY: REGINA

AND FLORA, BOTH SURNAMED
DORONIO,
Petitioners,
- versus -

G.R. No. 169454

Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.

HEIRS OF FORTUNATO
DORONIO, NAMELY: TRINIDAD
ROSALINA DORONIO-BALMES,
MODING DORONIO, FLORENTINA
DORONIO, AND ANICETA
Promulgated:
ALCANTARA-MANALO,
Respondents.
December 27, 2007
x--------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
REYES, R.T., J.:
For Our review on certiorari is the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA)
reversing that[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45,
Anonas, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, in an action for reconveyance and
damages. The CA declared respondents as rightful owners of one-half of the
subject property and directed petitioners to execute a registerable document
conveying the same to respondents.

The Facts
Spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante, now both deceased, were the
registered owners of a parcel of land located at Barangay Cabalitaan, Asingan,
Pangasinan covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 352. [3] The courts
below described it as follows:

Un terreno (Lote 1018), situada en el municipio de Asingan,

Linda por el NE; con propriedad de Gabriel Bernardino; con el SE con
propriedad de Zacarias Najorda y Alejandro Najorda; por el SO con
propriedad de Geminiano Mendoza y por el NO con el camino para
Villasis; midiendo una extension superficial mil ciento cincuenta y dos
metros cuadrados.[4]

The spouses had children but the records fail to disclose their number. It is
clear, however, that Marcelino Doronio and Fortunato Doronio, now both
deceased, were among them and that the parties in this case are their
heirs. Petitioners are the heirs of Marcelino Doronio, while respondents are the
heirs of Fortunato Doronio.
On April 24, 1919, a private deed of donation propter nuptias[5] was
executed by spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante in favor of Marcelino
Doronio and the latters wife, Veronica Pico. One of the properties subject of said
deed of donation is the one that it described as follows:
Fourth A piece of residential land located in the barrio of
Cabalitian but we did not measure it, the area is bounded on the north by
Gabriel Bernardino; on the east by Fortunato Doronio; on the south by
Geminiano Mendoza and on the west by a road to Villasis. Constructed
on said land is a house of light materials also a part of the
dowry. Value 200.00.[6]

It appears that the property described in the deed of donation is the one
covered by OCT No. 352. However, there is a significant discrepancy with respect
to the identity of the owner of adjacent property at the eastern side. Based on OCT
No. 352, the adjacent owners are Zacarias Najorda and Alejandro Najorda, whereas
based on the deed of donation, the owner of the adjacent property is Fortunato
Doronio. Furthermore, said deed of donation remained a private document as it
was never notarized.[7]

Both parties have been occupying the subject land

decades[8] although they have different theories regarding
ownership. According to petitioners, they are now the owners
property in view of the private deed of donation propter nuptias in
predecessors, Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico.

for several
its present
of the entire
favor of their

Respondents, on the other hand, claim that only half of the property was
actually incorporated in the said deed of donation because it stated that Fortunato
Doronio, instead of Zacarias Najorda and Alejandro Najorda, is the owner of the
adjacent property at the eastern side. Respondents posit that the donors respected
and segregated the possession of Fortunato Doronio of the eastern half of the
land. They are the ones who have been possessing said land occupied by their
predecessor, Fortunato Doronio.
Eager to obtain the entire property, the heirs of Marcelino Doronio and
Veronica Pico filed, on January 11, 1993, before the RTC in Urdaneta, Pangasinan
a petition For the Registration of a Private Deed of Donation [9] docketed as
Petition Case No. U-920. No respondents were named in the said
petition[10] although notices of hearing were posted on the bulletin boards
of Barangay Cabalitaan, Municipalities of Asingan and Lingayen.[11]

During the hearings, no one interposed an objection to the petition. [12] After
the RTC ordered a general default,[13] the petition was eventually granted
on September 22, 1993. This led to the registration of the deed of donation,
cancellation of OCT No. 352 and issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 44481 in the names of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico. [14] Thus,
the entire property was titled in the names of petitioners predecessors.
On April 28, 1994, the heirs of Fortunato Doronio filed a pleading before
the RTC in the form of a petition in the same Petition Case No. U-920. The
petition was for the reconsideration of the decision of the RTC that ordered the
registration of the subject deed of donation. It was prayed in the petition that an
order be issued declaring null and void the registration of the private deed of
donation and that TCT No. 44481 be cancelled. However, the petition was

dismissed on May 13, 1994 on the ground that the decision in Petition Case No. U920 had already become final as it was not appealed.
Determined to remain in their possessed property, respondent heirs of
Fortunato Doronio (as plaintiffs) filed an action for reconveyance and damages
with prayer for preliminary injunction[15] against petitioner heirs of Marcelino
Doronio (as defendants) before the RTC, Branch 45, Anonas, Urdaneta City,
Pangasinan. Respondents contended, among others, that the subject land is
different from what was donated as the descriptions of the property under OCT No.
352 and under the private deed of donation were different. They posited that
spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante intended to donate only one-half of
the property.
During the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated, among others, that the
property was originally covered by OCT No. 352 which was cancelled by TCT No.
44481. They also agreed that the issues are: (1) whether or not there was a
variation in the description of the property subject of the private deed of donation
and OCT No. 352; (2) whether or not respondents had acquired one-half of the
property covered by OCT No. 352 by acquisitive prescription; (3) whether or not
the transfer of the whole property covered by OCT No. 352 on the basis of the
registration of the private deed of donation notwithstanding the discrepancy in the
description is valid; (4) whether or not respondents are entitled to damages;
and
(5) whether or not TCT No. 44481 is valid.[16]
RTC Decision
After due proceedings, the RTC ruled in favor of petitioner heirs of
Marcelino Doronio (defendants). It concluded that the parties admitted the identity
of the land which they all occupy;[17] that a title once registered under the torrens
system cannot be defeated by adverse, open and notorious possession or by
prescription;[18] that the deed of donation in consideration of the marriage of the
parents of petitioners is valid, hence, it led to the eventual issuance of TCT No.
44481 in the names of said parents;[19] and that respondent heirs of Fortunato
Doronio (plaintiffs) are not entitled to damages as they are not the rightful owners
of the portion of the property they are claiming.[20]

The RTC disposed of the case, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby renders
judgment DISMISSING the herein Complaint filed by plaintiffs against
defendants.[21]

Disagreeing with the judgment of the RTC, respondents appealed to the

CA. They argued that the trial court erred in not finding that respondents
predecessor-in-interest acquired one-half of the property covered by OCT No. 352
by tradition and/or intestate succession; that the deed of donation dated April 26,
1919 was null and void; that assuming that the deed of donation was valid, only
one-half of the property was actually donated to Marcelino Doronio and Veronica
Pico; and that respondents acquired ownership of the other half portion of the
property by acquisitive prescription.[22]
CA Disposition
In a Decision dated January 26, 2005, the CA reversed the RTC decision
with the following disposition:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision dated June 28, 2002 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Declaring the appellants as rightful
owners of one-half of the property now covered by TCT No. 44481, the
appellees are hereby directed to execute a registerable document
conveying the same to appellants.
SO ORDERED.[23]

The appellate court determined that (t)he intention to donate half of the
disputed property to appellees predecessors can be gleaned from the disparity of
technical descriptions appearing in the title (OCT No. 352) of spouses Simeon
Doronio and Cornelia Gante and in the deed of donation propter nuptias executed
on April 24, 1919 in favor of appellees predecessors.[24]

The CA based its conclusion on the disparity of the following technical

descriptions of the property under OCT No. 352 and the deed of donation, to wit:
The court below described the property covered by OCT No. 352
as follows:
Un terreno (Lote 1018), situada en el municipio de
Asingan, Linda por el NE; con propriedad de Gabriel
Bernardino; con el SE con propriedad de Zacarias Najorda
y Alejandro Najorda; por el SO con propriedad de
Geminiano Mendoza y por el NO con el camino para
Villasis; midiendo una extension superficial mil ciento
cincuenta y dos metros cuadrados.
On the other hand, the property donated to appellees predecessors
was described in the deed of donation as:
Fourth A piece of residential land located in the
barrio of Cabalitian but we did not measure it, the area is
bounded on the north by Gabriel Bernardino; on the east
by Fortunato Doronio; on the south by Geminiano
Mendoza and on the west by a road to
Villasis. Constructed on said land is a house of light
materials also a part of the dowry. Value
200.00.[25] (Emphasis ours)

Taking note that the boundaries of the lot donated to Marcelino Doronio
and Veronica Pico differ from the boundaries of the land owned by spouses Simeon
Doronio and Cornelia Gante, the CA concluded that spouses Simeon Doronio and
Cornelia Gante donated only half of the property covered by OCT No. 352.[26]
Regarding the allegation of petitioners that OCT No. 352 is inadmissible in
evidence, the CA pointed out that, while the OCT is written in the Spanish
language, this document already forms part of the records of this case for failure of
appellees to interpose a timely objection when it was offered as evidence in the
proceedings a quo. It is a well-settled rule that any objection to the admissibility
of such evidence not raised will be considered waived and said evidence will have
to form part of the records of the case as competent and admitted evidence.[27]

The CA likewise ruled that the donation of the entire property in favor of
petitioners predecessors is invalid on the ground that it impairs the legitime of
respondents predecessor, Fortunato Doronio. On this aspect, the CA reasoned out:
Moreover, We find the donation of the entire property in favor of
appellees predecessors invalid as it impairs the legitime of appellants
predecessor. Article 961 of the Civil Code is explicit. In default of
testamentary heirs, the law vests the inheritance, x x x, in the legitimate
x x x relatives of the deceased, x x x. As Spouses Simeon Doronio and
Cornelia Gante died intestate, their property shall pass to their lawful
heirs, namely: Fortunato and Marcelino Doronio. Donating the entire
property to Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico and excluding another
heir, Fortunato, tantamounts to divesting the latter of his rightful share in
his parents inheritance. Besides, a persons prerogative to make
donations is subject to certain limitations, one of which is that he cannot
give by donation more than what he can give by will (Article 752, Civil
Code). If he does, so much of what is donated as exceeds what he can
give by will is deemed inofficious and the donation is reducible to the
extent of such excess.[28]

Petitioners were not pleased with the decision of the CA. Hence, this
petition under Rule 45.
Issues
Petitioners now contend that the CA erred in:
1.

DECLARING ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ORIGINAL

CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 352 DESPITE OF LACK OF
TRANSLATION THEREOF.

2.

(RULING THAT) ONLY HALF OF THE DISPUTED

PROPERTY WAS DONATED TO THE PREDECESSORS-ININTEREST OF THE HEREIN APPELLANTS.

3.

(ITS) DECLARATION THAT THE DONATION PROPTER

NUPTIAS IS INNOFICIOUS, IS PREMATURE, AND THUS IT IS
ILLEGAL AND UNPROCEDURAL.[29]

Our Ruling
OCT No. 352 in Spanish Although Not
Translated into English or Filipino Is
Admissible For Lack of Timely Objection
Petitioners fault the CA for admitting OCT No. 352 in evidence on the
ground that it is written in Spanish language. They posit that (d)ocumentary
evidence in an unofficial language shall not be admitted as evidence, unless
accompanied with a translation into English or Filipino.[30]
The argument is untenable. The requirement that documents written in an
unofficial language must be accompanied with a translation in English or Filipino
as a prerequisite for its admission in evidence must be insisted upon by the parties
at the trial to enable the court, where a translation has been impugned as incorrect,
to decide the issue.[31] Where such document, not so accompanied with a translation
in English or Filipino, is offered in evidence and not objected to, either by the
parties or the court, it must be presumed that the language in which the document
is written is understood by all, and the document is admissible in evidence.[32]
Moreover, Section 36, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides:
SECTION 36. Objection. Objection to evidence offered orally
must be made immediately after the offer is made.
Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral
examination of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor
shall become reasonably apparent.
An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within
three (3) days after notice of the offer unless a different period is
allowed by the court.
In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.
(Emphasis ours)

Since petitioners did not object to the offer of said documentary evidence on
time, it is now too late in the day for them to question its admissibility. The rule is

that evidence not objected may be deemed admitted and may be validly considered
by the court in arriving at its judgment.[33] This is true even if by its nature, the
evidence is inadmissible and would have surely been rejected if it had been
challenged at the proper time.[34]
As a matter of fact, instead of objecting, petitioners admitted the contents of
Exhibit A, that is, OCT No. 352 in their comment [35] on respondents formal offer
of documentary evidence. In the said comment, petitioners alleged, among others,
that Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F and G, are admitted but not for the purpose they are
offered because these exhibits being public and official documents are the best
evidence of that they contain and not for what a party would like it to
prove.[36] Said evidence was admitted by the RTC.[37] Once admitted without
objection, even though not admissible under an objection, We are not inclined now
to reject it.[38] Consequently, the evidence that was not objected to became property
of the case, and all parties to the case are considered amenable to any favorable or
unfavorable effects resulting from the said evidence.[39]
Issues on Impairment of Legitime
Should Be Threshed Out in a Special
Proceeding, Not in Civil Action for
Reconveyance and Damages
On the other hand, petitioners are correct in alleging that the issue regarding
the impairment of legitime of Fortunato Doronio must be resolved in an action for
the settlement of estates of spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante. It may
not be passed upon in an action for reconveyance and damages. A probate court, in
the exercise of its limited jurisdiction, is the best forum to ventilate and adjudge the
issue of impairment of legitime as well as other related matters involving the
settlement of estate.[40]
An action for reconveyance with damages is a civil action, whereas matters
relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as advancement of
property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of a special
proceeding. Special proceedings require the application of specific rules as
provided for in the Rules of Court.[41]

As explained by the Court in Natcher v. Court of Appeals:[42]

Section 3, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure defines
civil action and special proceedings, in this wise:
x x x a) A civil action is one by which a party sues
another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong.
A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both
are governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject
to specific rules prescribed for a special civil action.
xxxx
c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact.
As could be gleaned from the foregoing, there lies a marked
distinction between an action and a special proceeding. An action is a
formal demand of ones right in a court of justice in the manner
prescribed by the court or by the law. It is the method of applying legal
remedies according to definite established rules. The term special
proceeding may be defined as an application or proceeding to establish
the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Usually, in special
proceedings, no formal pleadings are required unless the statute
expressly so provides. In special proceedings, the remedy is granted
generally upon an application or motion.
Citing American Jurisprudence, a noted authority in Remedial
Law expounds further:
It may accordingly be stated generally that actions
include those proceedings which are instituted and
prosecuted according to the ordinary rules and provisions
relating to actions at law or suits in equity, and that special
proceedings include those proceedings which are not
ordinary in this sense, but is instituted and prosecuted
according to some special mode as in the case of
proceedings commenced without summons and prosecuted
without regular pleadings, which are characteristics of

ordinary actions x x x. A special proceeding must therefore

be in the nature of a distinct and independent proceeding
for particular relief, such as may be instituted
independently of a pending action, by petition or motion
upon notice.
Applying these principles, an action for reconveyance and
annulment of title with damages is a civil action, whereas matters
relating to settlement of the estate of a deceased person such as
advancement of property made by the decedent, partake of the nature of
a special proceeding, which concomitantly requires the application of
specific rules as provided for in the Rules of Court.
Clearly, matters which involve settlement and distribution of the
estate of the decedent fall within the exclusive province of the probate
court in the exercise of its limited jurisdiction.
Thus, under Section 2, Rule 90 of the Rules of Court, questions as
to advancement made or alleged to have been made by the deceased to
any heir may be heard and determined by the court having jurisdiction of
the estate proceedings, and the final order of the court thereon shall be
binding on the person raising the questions and on the heir.
While it may be true that the Rules used the word may, it is
nevertheless clear that the same provision contemplates a probate court
when it speaks of the court having jurisdiction of the estate
proceedings.
Corollarily, the Regional Trial Court in the instant case, acting in
its general jurisdiction, is devoid of authority to render an adjudication
and resolve the issue of advancement of the real property in favor of
herein petitioner Natcher, inasmuch as Civil Case No. 71075 for
reconveyance and annulment of title with damages is not, to our mind,
the proper vehicle to thresh out said question. Moreover, under the
present circumstances, the RTC of Manila, Branch 55, was not properly
constituted as a probate court so as to validly pass upon the question of
advancement made by the decedent Graciano Del Rosario to his wife,
herein petitioner Natcher.

We likewise find merit in petitioners contention that before any conclusion

about the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is necessary that

certain steps be taken first.[43] The net estate of the decedent must be ascertained,
by deducting all payable obligations and charges from the value of the property
owned by the deceased at the time of his death; then, all donations subject to
collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus determined, the
legitime of the compulsory heir or heirs can be established; and only then can it be
ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes.[44]
Declaration of Validity of Donation
Can Be Challenged by an Interested
Party Not Impleaded in Petition for
Quieting of Title or Declaratory Relief
or Where There is No Res Judicata.
Moreover, This Court Can Consider
a Factual Matter or Unassigned Error
in the Interest of Substantial Justice.
Nevertheless, petitioners cannot preclude the determination of validity of
the deed of donation on the ground that (1) it has been impliedly admitted by
respondents; (2) it has already been determined with finality by the RTC in Petition
Case No. U-920; or (3) the only issue in an action for reconveyance is who has a
better right over the land.[45]
The validity of the private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of
petitioners predecessors was one of the issues in this case before the lower
courts. The pre-trial order[46] of the RTC stated that one of the issues before it is
(w)hether or not the transfer of the whole property covered by OCT No. 352 on
the basis of the private deed of donation notwithstanding the discrepancy in the
description is valid. Before the CA, one of the errors assigned by respondents is
that THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE PRIVATE
DEED OF DONATION DATED APRIL 26, 1919 WAS NULL AND VOID.[47]
The issue of the validity of donation is likewise brought to Us by petitioners
as they stated in their Memorandum[48] that one of the issues to be resolved is
regarding the alleged fact that THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN FINDING THE DONATION INVALID. We are thus poised to
inspect the deed of donation and to determine its validity.

We cannot agree with petitioners contention that respondents may no longer

question the validity of the deed of donation on the ground that they already
impliedly admitted it. Under the provisions of the Civil Code, a void contract is
inexistent from the beginning. The right to set up the defense of its illegality
cannot be waived.[49] The right to set up the nullity of a void or non-existent
contract is not limited to the parties as in the case of annullable or voidable
contracts; it is extended to third persons who are directly affected by the contract.
[50]

Consequently, although respondents are not parties in the deed of donation,

they can set up its nullity because they are directly affected by the same. [51] The
subject of the deed being the land they are occupying, its enforcement will
definitely affect them.
Petitioners cannot also use the finality of the RTC decision in Petition Case
No. U-920[52] as a shield against the verification of the validity of the deed of
donation. According to petitioners, the said final decision is one for quieting of
title.[53] In other words, it is a case for declaratory relief under Rule 64 (now Rule
63) of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SECTION 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested
under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights
are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, or ordinance,
may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action to determine any
question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or
statute and for a declaration of his rights or duties thereunder.

An action for the reformation of an instrument, to quiet title to

real property or remove clouds therefrom, or to consolidate ownership
under Article 1607 of the Civil Code, may be brought under this rule.
SECTION 2. Parties. All persons shall be made parties who
have or claim any interest which would be affected by the

declaration; and no declaration shall, except as otherwise provided

in these rules, prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the
action. (Emphasis ours)

However, respondents were not made parties in the said Petition Case No.
U-920. Worse, instead of issuing summons to interested parties, the RTC merely
allowed the posting of notices on the bulletin boards of Barangay Cabalitaan,
Municipalities of Asingan and Lingayen, Pangasinan. As pointed out by the CA,
citing the ruling of the RTC:
x x x In the said case or Petition No. U-920, notices were posted
on the bulletin boards of barangay Cabalitaan, Municipalities of Asingan
and Lingayen, Pangasinan, so that there was a notice to the whole world
and during the initial hearing and/or hearings, no one interposed
objection thereto.[54]

Suits to quiet title are not technically suits in rem, nor are they, strictly
speaking, in personam, but being against the person in respect of the res, these
proceedings are characterized as quasi in rem.[55] The judgment in such
proceedings is conclusive only between the parties.[56] Thus, respondents are not
bound by the decision in Petition Case No. U-920 as they were not made parties in
the said case.
The rules on quieting of title [57] expressly provide that any declaration in a
suit to quiet title shall not prejudice persons who are not parties to the action.

That respondents filed a subsequent pleading[58] in the same Petition Case

No. U-920 after the decision there had become final did not change the fact that
said decision became final without their being impleaded in the case. Said
subsequent pleading was dismissed on the ground of finality of the decision.[59]
Thus, the RTC totally failed to give respondents their day in court. As a
result, they cannot be bound by its orders. Generally accepted is the principle that
no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger, and strangers
to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by the court.[60]

Moreover, for the principle of res judicata to apply, the following must be
present: (1) a decision on the merits; (2) by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3)
the decision is final; and (4) the two actions involve identical parties, subject
matter and causes of action.[61] The fourth element is not present in this case. The
parties are not identical because respondents were not impleaded in Petition Case
No. U-920. While the subject matter may be the same property covered by OCT
No. 352, the causes of action are different. Petition Case No. U-920 is an action for
declaratory relief while the case below is for recovery of property.
We are not persuaded by petitioners posture that the only issue in this action
for reconveyance is who has a better right over the land; and that the validity of the
deed of donation is beside the point.[62] It is precisely the validity and
enforceability of the deed of donation that is the determining factor in resolving the
issue of who has a better right over the property. Moreover, notwithstanding
procedural lapses as to the appropriateness of the remedies prayed for in the
petition filed before Us, this Court can brush aside the technicalities in the interest
of justice. In some instances, this Court even suspended its own rules and
excepted a case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so
demanded.[63]
Moreover, although respondents did not directly raise the issue of validity of
the deed of donation at the commencement of the case before the trial court, it was
stipulated[64] by the parties during the pre-trial conference. In any event, this Court
has authority to inquire into any question necessary in arriving at a just decision of
a case before it.[65] Though not specifically questioned by the parties, additional
issues may also be included, if deemed important for substantial justice to be
rendered.[66]
Furthermore, this Court has held that although a factual issue is not squarely
raised below, still in the interest of substantial justice, this Court is not prevented
from considering a pivotal factual matter. The Supreme Court is clothed with
ample authority to review palpable errors not assigned as such if it finds that their
consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision.[67]

A rudimentary doctrine on appealed cases is that this Court is clothed with

ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors on
appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary at arriving at a just decision
of the case.[68] Also, an unassigned error closely related to an error properly
assigned or upon which the determination of the question raised by the error
properly assigned is dependent, will be considered by the appellate court
notwithstanding the failure to assign it as an error.[69]
Donation Propter Nuptias of Real
Property Made in a Private Instrument
Before the New Civil Code Took Effect
on August 30, 1950 is Void
We now focus on the crux of the petition, which is the validity of the deed of
donation. It is settled that only laws existing at the time of the execution of a
contract are applicable to it and not the later statutes, unless the latter are
specifically intended to have retroactive effect.[70] Accordingly, the Old Civil Code
applies in this case as the donation propter nuptias was executed in 1919, while the
New Civil Code took effect only on August 30, 1950.
Under the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias must be made in a
public instrument in which the property donated must be specifically described.
[71]
Article 1328 of the Old Civil Code provides that gifts propter nuptias are
governed by the rules established in Title 2 of Book 3 of the same Code. Article
633 of that title provides that the gift of real property, in order to be valid, must
appear in a public document.[72] It is settled that a donation of real estate propter
nuptias is void unless made by public instrument.[73]
In the instant case, the donation propter nuptias did not become
valid. Neither did it create any right because it was not made in a public
instrument.[74] Hence, it conveyed no title to the land in question to petitioners
predecessors.
Logically, then, the cancellation of OCT No. 352 and the issuance of a
new TCT No. 44481 in favor of petitioners predecessors have no legal basis. The

title to the subject property should, therefore, be restored to its original owners
under OCT No. 352.
Direct reconveyance to any of the parties is not possible as it has not yet
been determined in a proper proceeding who among the heirs of spouses Simeon
Doronio and Cornelia Gante is entitled to it. It is still unproven whether or not the
parties are the only ones entitled to the properties of spouses Simeon Doronio and
Cornelia Gante. As earlier intimated, there are still things to be done before the
legal share of all the heirs can be properly adjudicated.[75]
Titled Property Cannot Be Acquired
By Another By Adverse Possession
or Extinctive Prescription
Likewise, the claim of respondents that they became owners of the property
by acquisitive prescription has no merit. Truth to tell, respondents cannot
successfully invoke the argument of extinctive prescription. They cannot be
deemed the owners by acquisitive prescription of the portion of the property they
have been possessing. The reason is that the property was covered by OCT No.
352. A title once registered under the torrens system cannot be defeated even by
adverse, open and notorious possession; neither can it be defeated by prescription.
[76]
It is notice to the whole world and as such all persons are bound by it and no
one can plead ignorance of the registration.[77]
The torrens system is intended to guarantee the integrity and conclusiveness
of the certificate of registration, but it cannot be used for the perpetration of fraud
against the real owner of the registered land. [78] The system merely confirms
ownership and does not create it. Certainly, it cannot be used to divest the lawful
owner of his title for the purpose of transferring it to another who has not acquired
it by any of the modes allowed or recognized by law. It cannot be used to protect a
usurper from the true owner, nor can it be used as a shield for the commission of
fraud; neither does it permit one to enrich himself at the expense of another.
[79]
Where such an illegal transfer is made, as in the case at bar, the law presumes
that no registration has been made and so retains title in the real owner of the land.
[80]

Although We confirm here the invalidity of the deed of donation and of its
resulting TCT No. 44481, the controversy between the parties is yet to be fully
settled. The issues as to who truly are the present owners of the property and what
is the extent of their ownership remain unresolved. The same may be properly
threshed out in the settlement of the estates of the registered owners of the
property, namely: spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia Gante.
WHEREFORE, the appealed
ASIDE. A new one is entered:

Decision

is REVERSED AND SET

(1) Declaring the private deed of donation propter nuptias in favor of

petitioners predecessors NULL AND VOID; and
(2) Ordering the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan to:
(a) CANCEL Transfer Certificate of Title No. 44481 in the
names of Marcelino Doronio and Veronica Pico; and
(b) RESTORE Original Certificate of Title No. 352 in the
names of its original owners, spouses Simeon Doronio and Cornelia
Gante.
SO ORDERED.