600

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valencia vs. Locquiao
*

G.R.No.122134.October3,2003.

ROMANALOCQUIAOVALENCIAandCONSTANCIAL.
VALENCIA,petitioners,vs.BENITO A. LOCQUIAO, now
deceasedandsubstitutedbyJIMMYLOCQUIAO,TOMASA
MARA and the REGISTRAR OF DEEDS OF
PANGASINAN,respondents.

CONSTANCIA L. VALENCIA, petitioner, vs. BENITO A.

LOCQUIAO, now deceased and substituted by JIMMY
LOCQUIAO,respondent.
Attorneys; Notary Public; Failure of the notary public to
furnish a copy of the deed to the appropriate office is a ground for
disciplining him but certainly not for invalidating the document or
for setting aside the transaction therein involved.Thecertification
is not sufficient to prove the alleged inexistence or spuriousness of
thechallengeddocument.Theappellatecourtiscorrectinpointing
outthatthemereabsenceofthenotarialrecorddoesnotprovethat
the notary public does not have a valid notarial commission and
neither does the absence of a file copy of the document with the
archiveseffectevidenceofthefalsificationofthedocu
_______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

601

VOL.412,OCTOBER3,2003

601

Valencia vs. Locquiao

ment. This Court ruled that the failure of the notary public to
furnish a copy of the deed to the appropriate office is a ground for
disciplininghim,butcertainlynotforinvalidatingthedocumentor
forsettingasidethetransactionthereininvolved.
Same; Same; A public document executed and attested through
the intervention of the notary public is evidence of the facts therein
expressed in clear unequivocal manner.Thirdly, the questioned
deeds, being public documents as they were duly notarized, are
admissibleinevidencewithoutfurtherproofoftheirdueexecution
and are conclusive as to the truthfulness of their contents, in the
absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. A public

document executed and attested through the intervention of the

notary public is evidence of the facts therein expressed in clear,
unequivocalmanner.
Civil Law; Donations; The celebration of the marriage between
the beneficiary couple in tandem with compliance with the
prescribed form was enough to effectuate the donation propter
nuptias under the Old Civil Code.Under the Old Civil Code,
donationspropter nuptias must be made in a public instrument in
whichthepropertydonatedmustbespecificallydescribed.However,
Article 1330 of the same Code provides that acceptance is not
necessary to the validity of such gifts. In other words, the
celebration of the marriage between the beneficiary couple, in
tandem with compliance with the prescribed form, was enough to
effectuatethedonation propter nuptiasundertheOldCivilCode.
Same; Same; As provided in Article 129, express acceptance is
not necessary for the validity of donations propter nuptias; Implied
acceptance is sufficient.Under the New Civil Code, the rules are
different. Article 127 thereof provides that the form of donations
propter nuptias are regulated by the Statute of Frauds. Article
1403, paragraph 2, which contains the Statute of Frauds requires
thatthecontractsmentionedthereunderneedbeinwritingonlyto
be enforceable. However, as provided in Article 129, express
acceptance is not necessary for the validity of these donations.
Thus,impliedacceptanceissufficient.
Same; Prescription; Petitioners action which was filed on
December 23, 1985 or more than forty (40) years from the execution
of the deed of donation on May 22, 1944 was clearly time
barred.Viewing petitioners action for reconveyance from
whateverfeasiblelegalangle,itisdefinitelybarredbyprescription.
Petitioners right to file an action for the reconveyance of the land
accrued in 1944, when the Inventario Ti Sagut was executed. It
must be remembered that before the effectivity of the New Civil
Code in 1950, the Old Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190)
governed prescription. Under the Old Code of Civil Procedure, an
actionforrecovery
602

602

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valencia vs. Locquiao

ofthetitleto,orpossessionof,realproperty,oraninteresttherein,
canonlybebroughtwithintenyearsafterthecauseofsuchaction
accrues.Thus,petitionersaction,whichwasfiledonDecember23,
1985,ormorethanforty(40)yearsfromtheexecutionofthedeed
ofdonationonMay22,1944,wasclearlytimebarred.
Same; Same; The prescriptive period for the reconveyance of
property allegedly registered through fraud is ten (10) years
reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title.As
early as May 15, 1970, when the deed of donation was registered
and the transfer certificate of title was issued, petitioners were
considered to have constructive knowledge of the alleged fraud,
following the jurisprudential rule that registration of a deed in the
publicrealestateregistryisconstructivenoticetothewholeworldof
its contents, as well as all interests, legal and equitable, included

therein. As it is now settled that the prescriptive period for the

reconveyance of property allegedly registered through fraud is ten
(10)years,reckonedfromthedateoftheissuanceofthecertificate
oftitle,theactionfiledonDecember23,1985hasclearlyprescribed.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionand
resolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Romeo C. Dela Cruzforrespondents.
TINGA,J.:
1

TheOldCivilCode and the Old Code of Civil Procedure,

repealedlawsthattheybotharenotwithstanding,havenot
abruptlybecomemerequiescentitemsoflegalhistorysince
their relevance do not wear off for a long time. Verily, the
oldstatutesprovedtobedecisiveintheadjudicationofthe
caseatbar.
Beforeusisapetitionforreviewseekingtoannulandset
3
asidethejointDecision
dated November 24, 1994, as well
4
as the Resolution
dated September 8, 1995, of the former
5
TenthDivision ofthe
_______________
1OtherwisereferredtoastheCivilCodeofSpainof1889.
2ActNo.190.
3Rollo,pp.4558.
4Id,atp.59.
5

Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., ponente, with former

AssociateJusticeJaimeM.Lantin,(ret.),andthenAssociateJustice
603

VOL.412,OCTOBER3,2003

603

Valencia vs. Locquiao

Court of Appeals in two consolidated
cases involving7an
6
actionforannulmentoftitle andanactionforejectment.
Both cases involve a parcel of land consisting of 4,876
squaremeterssituatedinUrdaneta,Pangasinan.Thisland
was originally owned by the spouses Herminigildo and
RaymundaLocquiao,asevidencedbyOriginal
Certificate of
8
Title No. 18383 issuedonOctober3,1917bytheRegisterof
DeedsofPangasinan.
OnMay22,1944,HerminigildoandRaymundaLocquiao
executed a deed of donation propter nuptias which was
writtenintheIlocanodialect,denominatedasInventario
Ti
9
Sagut in favor of their son, respondent Benito Locquiao
(hereafter, respondent Benito) and his prospective bride,
respondent Tomasa Mara (hereafter, respondent Tomasa).
Bythetermsofthedeed,thedoneesweregiftedwithfour
(4)parcelsofland,includingthelandinquestion,aswellas
amalecowandonethird(1/3)portionoftheconjugalhouse
of the donor parents, in consideration of the impending
marriageofthedonees.
The donees took their marriage vows on June 4, 1944
andthefactoftheirmarriagewasinscribedatthebackof

10

O.C.T.No.18383.
HerminigildoandRaymundadiedonDecember15,1962
andJanuary9,1968,respectively,leavingasheirstheirsix
(6) children, namely: respondent Benito, Marciano, Lucio,
Emeteria,Anastacia,andpetitionerRomana,allsurnamed
11
Locquiao. WiththepermissionofrespondentsBenitoand
Tomasa,petitionerRomanaValencia(hereinafter,Romana)
12
took possession and cultivated the subject land. When
respondent Romanas husband got sick sometime in 1977,
herdaughterpetitionerConstanciaValencia(hereaf
_______________
Maria Alicia AustriaMartinez (now Supreme Court Associate
Justice),concurring.
6CAG.R.No.CV21311.
7CAG.R.No.SP16789.
8AnnexA,Record,p.7.
9

Exhibit C, Record, p. 9, translated in English as Inventory of

Donation,Record,p.10.
10 Exhibit 7B, Annotation at the back of OCT 18383, supra;

Vide

RTCDecisioninCivilCaseNo.U4348,Record,p.253.
11TSN,October2,1986,pp.11,13.
12TSN,April7,1987,p.21.

604

604

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valencia vs. Locquiao

ter, petitioner Constancia) took

over, and since then, has
13
beeninpossessionoftheland.
Meanwhile, respondents Benito and Tomasa registered
theInventario Ti Sagut with the Office
of the Register of
14
DeedsofPangasinanonMay15,1970. Induecourse,the
original title was cancelled15and in lieu thereof Transfer
Certificate of Title No.84897 wasissuedinthenameofthe
respondentsBenitoandTomasa.
On March 18, 1973, the heirs of the Locquiao spouses,
including respondent Benito and petitioner Romana,
16
executed a Deed of Partition with Recognition of Rights,
whereintheydistributedamongonlythree(3)ofthem,the
twelve(12)parcelsoflandleftbytheircommonprogenitors,
excludingthelandinquestionandotherlotsdisposedofby
the Locquiao spouses earlier. Contained in the deed is a
statement that respondent Benito and Marciano Locquiao,
along with the heirs of Lucio Locquiao, have already
receivedoursharesintheestatesofourparents,byvirtueof
previous donations and conveyances, and that for that
reasontheheirsofLucioLocquaiowerenotmadepartiesto
thedeed.AllthelivingchildrenoftheLocquaiospousesat
the time, including petitioner Romana, confirmed the
previousdispositionsandwaivedtheirrightstowhomsoever
the properties
covered by the deed of partition were
17
adjudicated.
Lateron,disagreementsamongfive(5)heirsorgroupsof
heirs, including petitioner Romana, concerning the
distribution of two (2) of the lots covered by the deed of

partitionwhichareLotsNo.2467and5567oftheUrdaneta
CadastralSurveysurfaced.Astheirdifferencesweresettled,
the heirs18concerned executed a Deed of Compromise
Agreement on June 12, 1976, which provided for the re
distribution of the two (2) lots. Although not directly
involved in the discord, Benito signed the compromise
agreementtogetherwithhisfeudingsiblings,nephewsand
nieces. Significantly, all the signatories to the compromise
agreement,includingpetitioner
_______________
13TSN,October2,1986,pp.19,22.
14Exhibit7A,AnnotationatthebackofOCT18383,supra.
15ExhibitB,Record,p.208.
16Exhibit2,Record,p.170173.
17Ibid.,pp.34.
18Exhibit3,Record,pp.174175.

605

VOL.412,OCTOBER3,2003

605

Valencia vs. Locquiao

Romana,confirmedalltheotherstipulationsandprovisions
19
ofthedeedofpartition.
Sometimein1983,theapparentcalmpervadingamong
theheirswasdisturbedwhenpetitionerConstanciafiledan
actionforannulmentoftitleagainsttherespondentsbefore
20
theRegionalTrialCourtofPangasinan. Therecordshows
thatthecasewasdismissedbythetrialcourtbutitdoesnot
21
indicatethereasonforthedismissal.
OnDecember13,1983,respondentBenitofiledwiththe
Municipal22 Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan a
Complaint seekingtheejectmentofpetitionerConstancia
fromthesubjectproperty.
On November 25,
1985, the Municipal Trial Court
23
rendered a Decision, ordering the defendant in the case,
petitionerConstancia,tovacatethelandinquestion.
Petitioners
Romana and Constancia countered with a
24
Complaint for the annulment of Transfer Certificate of
25
Title No. 84897 against respondents Benito and Tomasa
which they filed with the Regional Trial Court of
PangasinanonDecember23,1985.Petitionersallegedthat
the issuance of the transfer certificate of title was
fraudulent; that the Inventario Ti Sagut is spurious; that
the notary public who notarized the document had no
authority to do so, and; that the donation did not observe
theformrequiredbylawastherewasnowrittenacceptance
onthedocumentitselforinaseparatepublicinstrument.
Meanwhile, the decision in the ejectment case was
appealedtothesameRTCwherethecaseforannulmentof
title was also pending. Finding that the question of
ownership was26the central issue in both cases, the court
issuedanOrder suspendingthe
_______________

19Ibid.
20

Agrarian Case No. 1406, Vide Decision dated January 30, 1989,

supra;TSN,April7,1987,pp.1314.
21Ibid.
22VideComplaintinCivilCaseNo.U4338,Record,p.3.
23Ibid.
24Record,pp.13.
25 On October 1, 1987, Benito Locquiao died. The court ordered for

the substitution of Jimmy Locquiao, the adopted son Benito Locquiao,

aspartydefendant.VideOrderdatedMarch23,1988,Record,p.215.
26 Order dated September 29, 1986, cited in the RTC decision dated

January31,1989,Records,pp.102103.
606

606

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valencia vs. Locquiao

proceedingsintheejectmentcaseuntilitshallhavedecided
theownershipissueinthetitleannulmentcase.
27
Aftertrial,theRTCrenderedaDecision datedJanuary
30,1989dismissingthecomplaintforannulmentoftitleon
thegroundsofprescriptionandlaches.Itlikewiseruledthat
theInventario Ti Sagut is a valid public document which
transmitted ownership over the subject land to the
respondents. With the dismissal of the complaint and the
confirmation of the respondents title over the subject
property,theRTCaffirmedin
totothedecisionoftheMTC
28
intheejectmentcase.
Dissatisfied,petitionerselevatedthetwo(2)decisionsto
the respondent Court of Appeals. Since they involve the
same parties and the same property, the appealed cases
wereconsolidatedbytheappellatecourt.
On November 24, 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered
theassailedDecisionaffirmingtheappealedRTCdecisions.
The appellate court upheld the RTCs conclusion that the
petitioners cause of action had already prescribed,
considering that the complaint for annulment of title was
filed more than fifteen (15) years after the issuance of the
title, or beyond the ten (10)year prescriptive period for
actionsforreconveyance.Itlikewiserejectedthepetitioners
assertionthatthedonationpropter nuptiasisnullandvoid
for want of acceptance by the donee, positing that the
implied acceptance flowing from the very fact of marriage
between the respondents, coupled with the registration of
the fact of marriage at the back of OCT No. 18383,
constitutessubstantialcompliancewiththerequirementsof
thelaw.
29
ThepetitionersfiledaMotion for Reconsideration30 butit
wasdeniedbytheappellatecourtinitsResolution dated
September8,1995.Hence,thispetition.
Wefindthepetitionentirelydevoidofmerit.
Concerning the annulment case, the issues to be
threshedoutare:(1)whetherthedonationpropter nuptias
isauthentic;(2)whetheracceptanceofthedonationbythe
doneesisrequired;(3)if
_______________

27Supra,item4.
28DecisiondatedJanuary31,1989,supra.
29Rollo,pp.104118.
30Id.,atp.59.

607

VOL.412,OCTOBER3,2003

607

Valencia vs. Locquiao

so, in what form should the acceptance appear, and; (4)
whethertheactionisbarredbyprescriptionandlaches.
The lnventario Ti Sagut which contains the donation
propter nuptias was executed and notarized on May 22,
1944. It was presented to the Register of Deeds of
Pangasinan for registration on May 15, 1970. The
photocopyofthedocumentpresentedinevidenceasExhibit
8wasreproducedfromtheoriginalkeptintheRegistryof
31
DeedsofPangasinan.
The petitioners have launched a twopronged attack
againstthevalidityofthedonationpropter nuptias, to wit
first,theInventario Ti Sagutisnotauthentic;andsecond,
evenassumingthatitisauthentic,itisvoidforthedonees
failuretoacceptthedonationinapublicinstrument.
To buttress their claim that the document was
falsified,
32
thepetitionersrelymainlyontheCertification datedJuly
9, 1984 of the Records Management and Archives Office
that there was no notarial record for the year 1944 of
CiprianoV.AbenojarwhonotarizedthedocumentonMay
22,1944andthatthereforeacopyofthedocumentwasnot
available.
The certification is not sufficient to prove the alleged
inexistence or spuriousness of the challenged document.
Theappellatecourtiscorrectinpointingoutthatthemere
absenceofthenotarialrecorddoesnotprovethatthenotary
public does not have a valid notarial commission and
neitherdoestheabsenceofafilecopyofthedocumentwith
the archives
effect evidence of the falsification of the
33
document. This Court ruled that the failure of the notary
public to furnish a copy of the deed to the appropriate office
is a ground for disciplining him, but certainly not for
invalidating the document
or for setting aside the
34
transaction therein involved.
Moreover, the heirs of the Locquaio spouses, including
petitionerRomana,madereferenceinthedeedofpartition
and the compromise agreement to the previous donations
madebythespousesin
_______________
31 Vide Certification dated August 11, 1983 at the bottom of Exhibit

8,Record,p.9.
32ExhibitW,Record,p.210.
33Decision,p.8,Rollo,p.52.
34Spouses

Santiago v. Court of Appeals,317Phil.400;247 SCRA 336

(1995).
608

608

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valencia vs. Locquiao
35

favor of some of the heirs. As pointed out by the RTC

respondentBenitowasnotallottedanyshareinthedeedof
partitionpreciselybecausehereceivedhissharebyvirtueof
previousdonations.Hisnamewasmentionedinthedeedof
partitiononlywithrespecttothemiddleportionofLotNo.
2638whichistheeleventh(11th)parcelinthedeedbutthat
isthesameonethird(1/3)portionofLotNo.2638covered
by O.C.T. No. 18259 included in the donation propter
nuptias. Similarly, Marciano Locquiao and the heirs of
Lucio Locquiao were not allocated any more share in the
deedofpartitionsincetheyreceivedtheirsbyvirtueofprior
donationsorconveyances.
Thepertinentprovisionsofthedeedofpartitionread:
...
That the heirs of Lucio Locquiao are not included in this
Partition by reason of the fact that in the same manner as we,
BENITO and MARCIANO LOCQUIAO are concerned, we have
already received our shares in the estate of our parents by virtue of
previous donations and conveyances, and that we hereby confirm
said dispositions, waiving our rights to whomsoever will these
properties will now be adjudicated;
...
That we, the Parties herein, do hereby waive and renounce as
against each other any claim or claims that we may have against
oneorsomeofus,andthatwe recognize the rights of ownership of
our coheirs with respect to those parcels already distributed and
adjudicatedandthatintheeventthatoneofusiscultivatingorin
possession of any one of the parcels of land already adjudicated in
favorofanotherheirorhasbeenconveyed,donated or disposed of
previously, in favor of another heir, we do hereby renounce and
waive our right of possessioninfavoroftheheirinwhosefavorthe
36
donationorconveyancewasmadepreviously. (Emphasissupplied)

Theexclusionofthesubjectpropertyinthedeedofpartition
dispels any doubt as to the authenticity of the earlier
Inventario Ti Sagut.
This brings us to the admissibility of the Deed of
Partition with Recognition of Rights,markedasExhibit2,
andtheDeed of Compromise Agreement,markedasExhibit
3.
_______________
35Decision,p.3,supra.
36Exhibit2,supra,pp.34.

609

VOL.412,OCTOBER3,2003

609

Valencia vs. Locquiao

ThepetitionersfaulttheRTCforadmittinginevidencethe
deed of partition and the compromise agreement on the
pretextthatthedocumentswerenotproperlysubmittedin

evidence,pointingoutthatwhenpresentedtorespondent
TomasaMaraforidentification,shesimplystatedthatshe
knewaboutthedocumentsbutshedidnotactuallyidentify
37
them.
The argument is not tenable. Firstly, objection to the
documentary evidence
must be made at the time it is
38
formallyoffered. Sincethepetitionersdidnotevenbother
toobjecttothedocumentsatthetimetheywereofferedin
39
evidence, itisnowtoolateinthedayforthemtoquestion
theiradmissibility.Secondly,thedocumentswereidentified
during the PreTrial, marked as Exhibits
2 and 3 and
40
testifiedonbyrespondentTomasa. Thirdly,thequestioned
deeds,beingpublicdocumentsastheyweredulynotarized,
areadmissibleinevidencewithoutfurtherproofoftheirdue
executionandareconclusiveastothetruthfulnessoftheir
contents,intheabsenceofclearandconvincingevidenceto
41
the contrary. A public document executed and attested
throughtheinterventionofthenotarypublicisevidenceof
42
thefactsthereinexpressedinclear,unequivocalmanner.
Concerning the issue
of form, petitioners insist that
43
basedonaprovision oftheCivilCodeofSpain(OldCivil
Code), the acceptance by the donees should be made in a
publicinstrument.ThisargumentwasrejectedbytheRTC
and the appellate court on the theory that the implied
acceptanceofthedonationhadflowedfromthecelebration
of the marriage between the respondents, followed by the
registrationofthefactofmarriageatthebackofOCTNo.
18383.
Thepetitioners,theappellatecourtandthetrialcourtall
erredinapplyingtherequirementsonordinarydonationsto
thepresent
_______________
37Petition,p.31,citingTSN,April7,1987,pp.1213.
38Section36,Rule132,RevisedRulesofCourt.
39OrderdatedMay22,1987,Record,p.192.
40TSN,April7,1987,FolderofTSN,p.107.
41Gerales

v. Court of Appeals,G.R.No.85909,9,February1993,218

SCRA638,648,citingBaranda v. Baranda,150SCRA59(1987).
42Ibid.,citingCollantes

v. Capuno,123SCRA652(1983).

43Article633oftheOldCivilCodeprovidesthattheacceptanceinan

ordinary donation must appear in a public instrument. This

requirementisthesameunderArticle749oftheNewCivilCode.
610

610

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valencia vs. Locquiao

case instead of the rules on donation propter nuptias.

Underlyingtheblunderistheirfailuretotakeintoaccount
the fundamental dichotomy between the two kinds of
donations.
Unlikeordinarydonations,donationspropter nuptiasor
donationsbyreasonofmarriagearethosemadebeforeits
celebration,inconsiderationofthesameandinfavorofone
44
or both of the future spouses. The distinction is crucial

because the two classes of donations are not governed by

exactly the same rules, especially as regards the formal
essentialrequisites.
Under the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias
mustbemadeinapublicinstrumentinwhichtheproperty
45
donated must be specifically described. However, Article
1330 of the same Code provides that acceptance is not
necessary to the validity of such gifts. In other words, the
celebrationofthemarriagebetweenthebeneficiarycouple,
in tandem with compliance with the prescribed form, was
enoughtoeffectuatethedonation propter nuptiasunderthe
OldCivilCode.
UndertheNewCivilCode,therulesaredifferent.Article
127 thereof provides that the form of donations propter
nuptias are regulated by the Statute of Frauds. Article
1403, paragraph 2, which contains the Statute of Frauds
requires that the contracts mentioned thereunder need be
in writing only to be enforceable. However, as provided in
Article 129, express acceptance is not necessary for the
validity of these donations. Thus, implied acceptance is
sufficient.
_______________
44Article126,NewCivilCode.ThedefinitionwasretainedinArticle

82 of the Family Code. Article 1327 of the Old Civil Code similarly
defines donations by reason of marriage as those bestowed before its
celebration in consideration of the same, upon one or both of the
spouses.
45 Article 1328 of the Old Civil Code provides that donations propter

nuptiasaregovernedbytherulesonordinarydonations(TitleII,Book
III of the Code) insofar as they are not modified by the following
articles.Article633ofthesameCode,whichisunderTitleII,BookIII,
provides that ordinary donations must be made in a public instrument
in which the property donated must be specifically described. It is also
settledthatadonationofrealestatepropter nuptiasisvoidunlessmade
by public instrument. Solis v. Barroso, 53 Phil. 912 (1928); Camagay v.
Lagera,7Phil.397(1907);Velasquez v. Biala,18Phil.231(1911).
611

VOL.412,OCTOBER3,2003

611

Valencia vs. Locquiao

The pivotal question, therefore, is which formal
requirementsshouldbeappliedwithrespecttothedonation
propter nuptiasathand.ThoseundertheOldCivilCodeor
theNewCivilCode?
It is settled that only laws existing at the time of the
executionofacontractareapplicabletheretoandnotlater
statutes,unlessthelatterarespecificallyintendedtohave
46
retroactive effect. Consequently, it is the Old Civil Code
whichappliesinthiscasesincethedonationpropter nuptias
was executed in 1944 and the
New Civil Code took effect
47
only on August 30, 1950. The fact that in 1944 the
Philippines was still under Japanese occupation is of no
consequence.ItisawellknownruleoftheLawofNations
that municipal laws, as contradistinguished from laws of

political nature,
are not abrogated by a change of
48
sovereignty. This Court specifically held that during the
Japanese
occupation period, the Old Civil Code was in
49
force. As a consequence, applying Article 1330 of the Old
Civil Code in the determination of the validity of the
questioneddonation,itdoesnotmatterwhetherornotthe
donees had accepted the donation. The validity of the
donationisunaffectedineithercase.
Even the petitioners agree that the Old Civil Code
should be
applied. However, they invoked the wrong
50
provisions thereof.
EveniftheprovisionsoftheNewCivilCodeweretobe
applied, the case of the petitioners would collapse just the
same. As earlier shown, even implied acceptance of a
donation
propter nuptias suffices under the New Civil
51
Code.
With the genuineness of the donation propter nuptias
and compliance with the applicable mandatory form
requirementsfully
_______________
46Philippine

Virginia Tobacco Administration vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No.

34628,30July1979,92SCRA172,citedinOrtigas Co., Ltd. vs. Court of

Appeals,G.R.No.126102,346SCRA748(2000).
47Ilejay

v. Ilejay, et al.,(S.C.)49O.G.4903; Casabar v. Sino Cruz, et

al., 96 Phil. 970 (1954), cited in I A. Tolentino, Civil Code of the

Philippines Commentaries and Jurisprudence18(1990ed.)
48Co

Kim Cham vs. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon,75Phil.371(1945).

49Ebero

v. Canizares,79Phil.152(1947).

50 The petitioners argued that the deed of donation did not comply

with the requirements of Article 633 of the Old Civil Code. Petition, p.
28,Record,p.29.
51Article129,NewCivilCode,supra

612

612

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valencia vs. Locquiao

established, petitioners hypothesis that their action is

imprescriptiblecannottakeoff.
Viewing petitioners action for reconveyance from
whatever feasible legal angle, it is definitely barred by
prescription. Petitioners right to file an action for the
reconveyance of the land accrued in 1944, when the
Inventario Ti Sagutwasexecuted.Itmustberemembered
thatbeforetheeffectivityoftheNewCivilCodein1950,the
Old Code of
Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) governed
52
prescription. Under the Old Code of Civil Procedure, an
action for recovery of the title to, or possession of, real
property,oraninteresttherein,canonlybebroughtwithin
53
ten years after the cause of such action accrues. Thus,
petitionersaction,whichwasfiledonDecember23,1985,or
morethanforty(40)yearsfromtheexecutionofthedeedof
donationonMay22,1944,wasclearlytimebarred.
Even following petitioners theory that the prescriptive
period should commence from the discovery of the alleged

fraud, the conclusion would still be the same. As early as

May15,1970,whenthedeedofdonationwasregisteredand
the transfer certificate of title was issued, petitioners were
considered to have constructive knowledge of the alleged
fraud,followingthejurisprudentialrulethatregistrationof
a deed in the public real estate registry is constructive
notice to the whole world of its contents, as well
as all
54
interests, legal and equitable, included therein. As it is
now settled that the prescriptive period for the
reconveyanceofpropertyallegedlyregisteredthroughfraud
isten(10)years,reckonedfromthedateoftheissuanceof
55
the certificate of title, the action filed on December 23,
1985hasclearlyprescribed.
In any event, independent of prescription, petitioners
actionisdismissibleonthegroundoflaches.Theelements
oflachesarepresentinthiscase,viz.:
_______________
52

Amerol, et al. v. Molok Bagumbaran, G.R. No. L33261, 30

September1987,154SCRA396.
53Section40,Act190.
54Garcia

v. Court of Appeals, 22 January 1980, G.R. Nos. L48971 &

49011,95SCRA380(1980),citingPrieto v. Saleeby,31Phil.590(1915).
55Caro

v. Court of Appeals,180SCRA402(1990).
613

VOL.412,OCTOBER3,2003

613

Valencia vs. Locquiao

(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or one under
whomheclaims,givingrisetothesituationthatled
to the complaint and for which the complainant
seeksaremedy;
(2) delay in asserting the complainants rights, having
hadknowledgeornoticeofdefendantsconductand
having been afforded an opportunity to institute a
suit;
(3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the
defendant that the complainant would assert the
rightonwhichhebaseshissuit,and
(4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event
relief is accorded
to the complainant, or the suit is
56
notheldbarred.
Of the facts which support the finding of laches, stress
shouldbemadeofthefollowing:(a)thepetitionersRomana
unquestionably gained actual knowledge of the donation
propter nuptiaswhenthedeedofpartitionwasexecutedin
1973 and the information must have surfaced again when
the compromise agreement was forged in 1976, and; (b) as
petitioner Romana was a partysignatory to the two
documents, she definitely had the opportunity to question
the donation propter nuptias on both occasions, and she
should have done so if she were of the mindset, given the
factthatshewasstillinpossessionofthelandindisputeat

the time. But she did not make any move. She tarried for
eleven (11) more years from the execution of the deed of
partition until she, together with petitioner Constancia,
filedtheannulmentcasein1985.
Anenttheejectmentcase,wefindtheissuesraisedbythe
petitionerstobefactualand,therefore,beyondthisCourts
powerofreview.Notbeingatrieroffacts,theCourtisnot
tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and
analyze, assess, and weigh them to ascertain if the trial
courtandtheappellatecourtwerecorrectinaccordingthem
superiorcreditinthisorthatpieceofevidenceofoneparty
57
ortheother. Inanyevent,implicitintheaffirmanceofthe
Court of Appeals is the existence of substantial evidence
supportingthedecisionsofthecourtsbelow.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the
assaileddecision,thesameisherebyAFFIRMED.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
_______________
56 Metropolitan

Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) v. Court

of Appeals,7October1998,G.R.No.126000,297SCRA287,306(1998).
57 Chan

Sui Bi vs. Court of Appeals, 29 September 2000, G.R. No.

129507,341SCRA364,372(2000).
614

614

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

SOORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), QuisumbingandCallejo, Sr.,
JJ.,concur.
AustriaMartinez, J., No part. Concurred in CA
decision.
Judgment affirmed.
Note.Article 1602 of the Civil Code enumerates the
instances when a contract will be presumed to be an
equitable mortgage. (Ching Sen Ben vs. Court of Appeals,
314SCRA762[1999])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.