REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, -versus- DAVID REY GUZMAN,

represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, LOLITA G. ABELA, and the REGISTER OF DEEDS

OF BULACAN, MEYCAUAYAN BRANCH, Respondents. G.R. No. 132964. SECOND
DIVISION, February 18, 2000, BELLOSILLO, J.

There are three (3) essential elements of a donation: (a) the reduction of the patrimony of
the donor; (b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee; and, (c) the intent to do an act of
liberality or animus donandi. When applied to a donation of an immovable property, the
law further requires that the donation be made in a public document and that there should
be an acceptance thereof made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document.7 In cases where the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, it is mandated
that the donor should be notified thereof in an authentic form, to be noted in both
instruments. Not all the elements of a donation of an immovable property are present in
the instant case.

FACTS

David Rey Guzman, a natural-born American citizen, is the son of the spouses Simeon
Guzman (naturalized American) and Helen Meyers Guzman (American citizen). In 1968,
Simeon died leaving to his heirs, Helen and David, an estate consisting of several parcels of
land in Bulacan. In 1970, Helen and David executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of
the Estate, dividing and adjudicating to themselves all of the property, and registered it to
the RD a year after. In 1981, Helen executed a Deed of Quitclaim, assigning, transferring
and conveying her ½ share of the properties to David. But since it was not registered, she
executed another Deed of Quitclaim to confirm the first. In 1994, Atty. Batongbacal wrote
the OSG and furnished it with documents showing that David’s ownership of ½ of the
estate was defective. He argued that Art. XII of the Constitution only allows Filipinos to
acquire private lands in the country. The only instances when a foreigner may acquire
private property are by hereditary succession and if he was formerly a natural-born citizen
who lost his Filipino citizenship. Moreover, it contends that the Deeds of Quitclaim
executed by Helen were really donations inter vivos. Republic filed with RTC a Petition for
Escheat praying that ½ of David’s interest be forfeited in its favor.

RTC dismissed while CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was a donation inter vivos

RULING: NO. There are three (3) essential elements of a donation: (a) the reduction of the
patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee; and, (c) the intent
to do an act of liberality or animus donandi. When applied to a donation of an immovable
property, the law further requires that the donation be made in a public document and that
there should be an acceptance thereof made in the same deed of donation or in a separate
public document.7 In cases where the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, it is
mandated that the donor should be notified thereof in an authentic form, to be noted in
both instruments. Not all the elements of a donation are present. The transfer of the
properties by virtue of a Deed of Quitclaim resulted in the (1) reduction of her patrimony
as donor and the (2) consequent increase in the patrimony of David as donee. However,
Helen’s (3) intention to perform an act of liberality in favor of David was not sufficiently
established. The 2 Quitclaims reveal that Helen intended to convey to her son certain
parcels of land and to re-affirm it, she executed a waiver and renunciation of her rights
over these properties. It is clear that Helen merely contemplated a waiver of her rights,
title, interest over the lands in favor of David, not a donation. She was also aware that
donation was not possible.

Moreover, the essential element of acceptance in the proper form and registration to make
the donation valid is lacking. The SPA executed by David in favor of Atty. Abela was not his
acceptance, but an acknowledgment that David owns the property referred to and that he
authorizes Atty. Abela to sell the same in his name. Further, there was nothing in the SPA to
show that he indeed accept the donation.

However, the inexistence of a donation does not make the repudiation of Helen in favor
David valid. There is NO valid repudiation of inheritance as Helen had already accepted her
share of the inheritance when she, together with David, executed a Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of the Estate, dividing and adjudicating between them all the properties. By
virtue of that settlement, the properties were registered in their names and for 11 years,
they possessed the land in the concept of owner. Thus, the 2 Quitclaims have no legal force
and effect. Helen still owns ½ of the property.