SUMIPAT vs. BANGA

LYDIA SUMIPAT, LAURITO SUMIPAT, ALEJANDRO SUMIPAT, ALICIA due execution of the deed and even admitted having
deed and even admitted having affixed her

SUMIPAT, and LIRAFE SUMIPAT, petitioners, signature thereon, the trial court declared that the entirety of the
vs. subject properties, and not just Lauro Sumipat’s conjugal share,
BRIGIDO BANGA, HERMINIGILDO TABOTABO, VIVIANO TABOTABO, were validly transferred to the defendants, the petitioners herein.
BERNARDITA ANIÑON, and LEONIDA TABOTABO, respondents. •
• But the Court of Appeals annulled the deed insofar as it covers
G.R. No. 155810 Placida’s conjugal share in the subject properties because the
August 13, 2004 latter’s consent thereto was vitiated by mistake when she affixed
her signature on the document.
FACTS:
• The spouses Placida Tabo-tabo and Lauro Sumipat, who are

childless, acquired three parcels of land. Lauro Sumipat, however,
ISSUES:
sired five illegitimate children out of an extra-marital affair with
Pedra Dacola, namely: herein defendants-appellees Lydia, Laurito,
Alicia, Alejandro and Lirafe, all surnamed Sumipat. 1. Whether or not the questioned deed by its terms or under the
• surrounding circumstances has validly transferred title to the
• On January 5, 1983, Lauro Sumipat executed a document disputed properties to the petitioners
denominated "DEED OF ABSOLUTE TRANSFER AND/OR QUIT- 2. Whether or not the questioned deed is subject to prescription.
CLAIM OVER REAL PROPERTIES" (the assailed document) in favor
of defendants-appellees covering the three parcels of land (the
properties).
•
• It appears that on January 5, 1983 when the assailed document HELD:
was executed, Lauro Sumipat was already very sick and
bedridden; that upon defendant-appellee Lydia’s request, their
neighbor Benjamin Rivera lifted the body of Lauro Sumipat 1. NO. A perusal of the deed reveals that it is actually a
whereupon Lydia guided his (Lauro Sumipat’s) hand in affixing his gratuitous disposition of property — a donation — although
signature on the assailed document which she had brought; that Lauro Sumipat imposed upon the petitioners the condition
Lydia thereafter left but later returned on the same day and that he and his wife, Placida, shall be entitled to one-half
requested Lauro’s unlettered wife Placida to sign on the assailed (1/2) of all the fruits or produce of the parcels of land for
document, as she did in haste, even without the latter getting a their subsistence and support.
responsive answer to her query on what it was all about. • The deed covers three (3) parcels of land. Being a
•
donation of immovable property, the requirements
• After Lauro Sumipat’s death,his wife Placida, and defendants- for validity set forth in Article 749 of the Civil Code
appellees jointly administered the properties 50% of the produce should have been followed, viz:
of which went to plaintiff-appellant. But as Placida’s share in the
produce of the properties dwindled until she no longer received In order that the donation of the immovable may be
any and learning that the titles to the properties in question were valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein
already transferred/made in favor of the defendants-appellees, the property donated and the value of the charges which the
she filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of titles, contracts, donee must satisfy.
partition, recovery of ownership now the subject of the present
appeal.’
• The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation
• The trial court found that the subject properties are conjugal. or in a separate public document, but it shall not take effect
However, because Placida failed to question the genuineness and unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.
Zenaida Resuma Razon

Co-ownership (Property)
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor
shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall
be noted in both instruments.
• In this case, the donees’ acceptance of the donation

is not manifested either in the deed itself or in a
separate document. Hence, the deed as an instrument
of donation is patently void.
2. NO. Being an absolute nullity, both as a donation and as a

sale, the deed is subject to attack at any time, in accordance
with the rule in Article 1410 of the Civil Code that an action to
declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe.
• when there is a showing of illegality, the property

registered is deemed to be simply held in trust for the
real owner by the person in whose name it is registered,
and the former then has the right to sue for the
reconveyance of the property. The action for the purpose
is also imprescriptible. As long as the land wrongfully
registered under the Torrens system is still in the name
of the person who caused such registration, an action in
personam will lie to compel him to reconvey the property
to the real owner
Zenaida Resuma Razon

Co-ownership (Property)

SUMIPAT vs. BANGA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUMIPAT vs. BANGA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUMIPAT vs. BANGA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LYDIA SUMIPAT, LAURITO SUMIPAT, ALEJANDRO SUMIPAT, ALICIA due execution of the deed and even admitted having

deed and even admitted having affixed her

• The spouses Placida Tabo-tabo and Lauro Sumipat, who are

Zenaida Resuma Razon

• In this case, the donees’ acceptance of the donation

2. NO. Being an absolute nullity, both as a donation and as a

• when there is a showing of illegality, the property

Zenaida Resuma Razon

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.