CMM DIGEST

Hemedes vs CA October 8, 1999 Who may give/receive donations

(Property)

FACTS: JOSE Hemedes is the father of MAXIMA & ENRIQUE. JOSE executed Donation Inter Vivos with Resolutory Conditions whereby he conveyed the subject land in favor of his third wife, JUSTA KAUSAPIN, subject to the following resolutory conditions: a. Upon the death or remarriage of the DONEE, the title to the property donated shall revert to any of the children, or their heirs, of the DONOR expressly designated by the DONEE in a public document conveying the property to the latter; or b. In absence of such an express designation made by the DONEE before her death or remarriage contained in a public instrument as above provided, the title to the property shall automatically revert to the legal heirs of the DONOR in common. Pursuant to the first condition, Justa Kausapin executed Deed of Conveyance by Reversion, conveying the property to Maxima Hemedes. A title was issued in the name of Maxima. Maxima then constituted a real estate mortgage over the property and the property was extrajudicially foreclosed by R&B insurance for Maximas failure to pay the loan she obtained. Meanwhile, despite the earlier conveyance by JUSTA to MAXIMA, JUSTA executed a Kasunduan conveying the same property to her stepson ENRIQUE. Enrique then sold the property to DOMINIUM REALTY. ISSUE: Which of the two conveyances made by JUSTA (1st in favor of Maxima; 2nd in favor of Enrique) effectively transferred ownership over the land. HELD: MAXIMA. RATIO: The allegation that the Deed of Conveyance by Reversion executed by Justa in favor of Maxima is spurious is not supported by evidence. Such is merely grounded on the denial of Justa Kausapin herself. Justa is a biased witness. She is 80 years old, suffering from worsening physical infirmities, and completely dependent on Enrique for support. CA erred when it declared the Deed of Conveyance by Reversion in favor of Maxima void for failure to comply with CC 1332 (CC 1332: When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former). In this case, Justa denies knowledge of the deed of conveyance. Hence, CC 1332 is inapplicable as it was useless to determine whether or not Justa was induced to execute the document by means of fraud when she denies knowledge of existence in the first place. Hence, the donation in favor of ENRIQUE is null and void for the purported object thereof did not exist at the time of the transfer, having already been transferred to his sister.