Justice Panganiban, Lagozo vs. Court of Appeals Facts: Catalina Jacob Vda.

De Reyes, a widow and grandmother of Lagazo (the petitioner of this case), was awarded 60.10 sq. meter lot which is a portion of the Monserrat Estate located in Old Sta. Mesa, Manila. The Monserrat Estate is a public owned property by the City of Manila and distributed for sale to bona fide tenants under its land-for-the landless program. Catalina Jacob then constructed a house on the said lot. Shortly before she left for Canada where she is now a permanent resident, Catalina Jacob executed a special power of attorney in favor of her son-in-law Eduardo Espaol authorizing him to execute all document necessary for the final adjudication of her claim as awardee of the lot. Due to the failure of Eduardo Espaol to accomplish the purpose of the power of attorney in an instrument executed in Canada, Catalina Jacob revoked the said power of attorney. Simultaneous with the revocation, the latter executed another power of attorney of the same tenor in favor of the petitioner. Catalina Jacob, thereafter, executed a Deed of Donation in cananda over the subject lot in favor of the petitioner. Following the donation, petitioner checked with the Register of Deeds and found out that the property was in the delinquent list and because of that, he paid the installments in arrears and the remaining balance on the lot and declared the said property in the name of Catalina Jacob. Petitioner then sent a demand letter to respondent Alfredo Cabanlit asking him to vacate the premises. A similar letter was also sent by the petitioners counsel. However, the respondent refused to vacate the premises claiming ownership thereof by virtue of a deed of sale executed in favor of him by Espaol. Hence, petitioner instituted the complaint for recovery of possession and damages against the respondent. Furthermore, petitioner contends that the burdens, charges or conditions imposed upon a donation need not be stated on the deed of donation itself. Thus, although the deed did not categorically imposed any charges, burdens or conditions to be satisfied by him, the donation was onerous since he in fact and in reality paid for the installments in arrears and for the remaining balance of the lot in question. Being an onerous donation, his acceptance thereof may be expressed or implied as provided under Art. 1320 of the Civil Code, and need not comply with the formalities required by Art. 749 of the same code. His payment of the arrears and balance and his assertion of his right of possession against private respondent clearly indicate his acceptance of the donation. Issue: WON the donation is simple of onerous. Held: The donation is simple donation. To differentiate between a simple donation and an onerous one; the simple (pure) donation is one whose cause is pure liberality (no strings attached) while an onerous donation is one which is subject to burdens, charges, or future services equal to or mere in value than the thing donated. Under Art. 733 of the Civil Code, donation with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on contracts, hence the formalities required for a valid simple donation are not applicable.

The Supreme Court ruled that the donation was simple, not onerous, because the act of the petitioner in paying full payment of the purchase price, even it might have been a burden to him such payment was not however imposed by the donor as a condition for the donation. It is clear that the donor did not have any intention to burden or charge petitioner as donee. The words in the deed are in fact typical of a pure donation. SC agreed with the CA that the payments made were his merely voluntary acts. This much can be gather from this testimony in court which was never even claimed that a burden or charge had been imposed by his grandmother. The payments even seem to have been made pursuant to the power of attorney executed by Catalina Jacob in favor of petitioner authorizing him to execute acts necessary for the fulfillment of her obligations. Nothing in the records shows that such acts were mere meant to be a burden in the donation. Furthermore, the donation being simple, perfection only happen upon the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee and if it is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified in an authentic form & this step shall be noted in both instruments. Acceptance of the donation by the donee is, therefore, indispensable, it absence makes the donation null and void.