Moreno-Lentfer v.

Wolff
GR No. 152317
November 10, 2004

Ponente: QUISUMBING, J.

Facts:
Petitioners, Lentfer and his wife, stated that with respondent they acquired the notarial
services of a lawyer for the sale of the petitioner’s beach house and the assignment of the
lease right, and that the latter would be in the name of petitioner Victoria Moreño-Lentfer,
amounting to 220,000 Deutschmarks (DM) would be paid by the respondent Wolff.  A
promissory note was executed by said respondent in favor of petitioner Cross. The
respondent paid Cross the amount of DM 221,700 for the sale and assignment of the lease
rights. Conversely, Cross, Moreño-Lentfer and Atty. Dimayacyac secretly made a deed of sale
where the beach house was made to appear as sold to Moreño-Lentfer for only P100,000.
The transfer of the lease right was also made for Moreño-Lentfer. The respondent then filed
a complaint for annulment of sale and reconveyance of property with damages and prayer
for a writ of attachment. The complaint was dismissed for failure to establish a cause of
action. The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, and CA reversed the lower courts
decision.
Issue:
Is Article 1238 of the New Civil Code applicable in the present case?
Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court stated that Article 1238 of the New Civil Code is not applicable in this
case.   The qualifying circumstance in Art. 1238 which is the absence of intention to be
reimbursed is refuted by the facts of the case. The respondent's actions dispute any
intention to donate the properties to petitioner Moreño-Lentfer. The respondent stayed at
the beach house as an owner and assumed the expenses for its maintenance and repair. The
Apparently, the respondent had entrusted the Lentfers to keep a time deposit account for
him with the bank for the purchase of the said properties.

The Court also said that the petitioner’s assertion of either cash or property donation do not
resonate as a donation is an act of liberality where a person gives at will of a thing or right in
agreement of another, who receives it. But if a large amount of money is involved, the court
is forced to take the petitioners' claim of liberality of the donor with skepticism.

In addition, a donation must conform to the compulsory formal requirements stated by law
for it to be valid. Accordingly, the donation of money as well as its acceptance should have
been in writing. In this case, it was not. Therefore, the donation is void for not complying
with the provisions set by law.