G.R. No. 159567 July 31, 2007 CORAZON CATALAN, et. al petitioner, vs. JOSE BASA, et. al respondents.

!NO, C.J." NAT!RE" Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 66 !" #which affir$ed the %ud&$ent of the Re&ional 'rial Court, (ranch 6), *in&a+en, Pan&asinan, in Civil Case No. ,!666, dis$issin& the Co$plaint for -eclaration of Nullit+ of -ocu$ents, Recover+ of Possession and .wnership, and da$a&es/ #ACTS" .n .cto0er 1 , ,)42, 34*5C5AN. CA'A*AN #3eliciano/ was dischar&ed fro$ active $ilitar+ service. 'he (oard of 6edical .fficers of the -epart$ent of Veteran Affairs found that he was unfit to render $ilitar+ service due to his 7schizophrenic reaction, catatonic type, which incapacitates him because of flattening of mood and affect, preoccupation with worries, withdrawal, and sparce (sic) and pointless speech. 8 .n 9epte$0er 12, ,)4), 3eliciano $arried Cora:on Cere:o. .n ;une ,6, ,)5,, a docu$ent was e<ecuted, titled 7A0solute -eed of -onation, 3eliciano alle&edl+ donated to his sister 64RC4-49 CA'A*AN #6ercedes/ one-half of the real propert+ #A parcel of land located at (aran&a+ (asin&, (in$ale+, Pan&asinan/ 'he donation was re&istered with the Re&ister of -eeds. .n -ece$0er ,,, ,)5", People=s (an> and 'rust Co$pan+ #presentl+ (P5/ filed 9pecial Proceedin&s No. 456" to C35 of Pan&asinan to declare 3eliciano inco$petent. .n -ece$0er 11, ,)5", the trial court issued its .rder for Ad%udication of 5nco$petenc+ for Appointin& Guardian for the 4state and 3i<in& Allowance of 3eliciano. 'he followin& da+, the trial court appointed People=s (an> and 'rust Co$pan+ as 3eliciano=s &uardian .'?4R -.NA'5.N9 6A-4 0+ 3eliciano and Cora:on -Nove$0er 11, ,)!2, donated *ots , and " to their son 4ulo&io Catalan, re&istered under .ri&inal Certificate of 'itle #.C'/ No. ,2)1 , -6arch 16, ,)!), 6ercedes sold the propert+ in issue in favor of her children -elia and ;esus (asa. -eed of A0solute 9ale was re&istered with the Re&ister of -eeds of Pan&asinan on 3e0ruar+ 1 , ,))1, and 'a< -eclaration No. ,1),, was issued in the na$e of respondents. $11% -;une 14, ,)2", donated *ot 1 of the afore$entioned propert+ re&istered under .C' No. ,2)1 to their children Ale< Catalan, *i0rada Catalan and @enaida Catalan. -3e0ruar+ ,4, ,)2", donated *ot 4 #Plan Psu-1,5)56/ of the sa$e .C' No. ,2)1 to 4ulo&io and 3lorida Catalan. -April ,, ,))!, (P5, actin& as 3eliciano=s &uardian, filed a case for -eclaration of Nullit+ of -ocu$ents, Recover+ of Possession and .wnership, as well as da$a&es a&ainst respondents. (P5 alle&ed that the -eed of A0solute -onation to 6ercedes was void ab initio, as 3eliciano never donated the propert+ to 6ercedes. -(P5 averred even if 3eliciano reall+ intended to &ive the propert+, the donation would still 0e void, as he was not of sound $ind and incapa0le of &ivin& valid consent. -5f the -eed of A0solute -onation was void ab initio, the su0seAuent -eed of A0solute 9ale to -elia and ;esus (asa should li>ewise 0e nullified, 6ercedes Catalan had no ri&ht to sell the propert+ to an+one. -Au&ust ,4, ,))!, 3eliciano passed awa+. 'he ori&inal co$plaint was a$ended to su0stitute his heirs in lieu of (P5 as co$plainants in Civil Case No. ,!666.

-R'C -5-65994- P*A5N'533=s C.6P*A5N'- evidence was insufficient to overco$e the presu$ption that 3eliciano was sane and co$petent at the ti$e he e<ecuted the deed of donation in favor of 6ercedes Catalan. R'C heldB the presumption of sanity or competency not having been duly impugned, the presumption of due execution of the donation in question must be upheld - -eclarin& the defendants ;esus (asa and -elia (asa the lawful owners of the land in Auestion which is now declared in their na$es under 'a< -eclaration No. ,1),, -CA A335R64- the decision of R'C #6ercedes Catalan acAuired valid title of ownership over the propert+ in dispute. (+ virtue of her ownership, the propert+ is co$pletel+ su0%ected to her will in ever+thin& not prohi0ited 0+ law of the concurrence with the ri&hts of others #Art. 412, NCC// &SS!E" C.N CA has decided the case in a wa+ pro0a0l+ not in accord with law, in holdin& that 7the R'C did not N.' C.665' A R4V4R95(*4 4RR.R 5N -59P.95NG '?A' P*A5N'533-APP4**AN'9 #P4'5'5.N4R9/ 3A5*4- '. PR.V4 '?4 5N9AN5'D .R 64N'A* 5NCAPAC5'D .3 '?4 *A'4 34*5C5AN. CA'A*AN A' '?4 PR4C594 6.64N' C?4N '?4 PR.P4R'D 5N -59PE'4 CA9 -.NA'4-8 Co'te't(o' o) ET&ONERS" Presu$ption of 3eliciano=s co$petence to donate propert+ to 6ercedes had 0een re0utted 0ecause the+ presented $ore than the reAuisite preponderance of evidence. ,. Certificate of -isa0ilit+ for the -ischar&e of 3eliciano Catalan issued on .cto0er 1 , ,)42 0+ the (oard of 6edical .fficers of the -epart$ent of Veteran Affairs. 1. -ece$0er 11, ,)5", 3eliciano was %ud&ed an inco$petent 0+ the Court of 3irst 5nstance of Pan&asinan, and put under the &uardianship of (P5. -Petitioners conclude that 3eliciano had 0een sufferin& fro$ a $ental condition since ,)42 which incapacitated hi$ fro$ enterin& into an+ contract thereafter, until his death on Au&ust ,4, ,))!. -3eliciano=s $arria&e to Cora:on Cere:o on 9epte$0er 12, ,)42 does not prove that he was not insane at the ti$e he $ade the Auestioned donation. -donations 3eliciano e<ecuted in favor of his successors also cannot prove his co$petenc+ 0ecause these donations were approved and confir$ed in the &uardianship proceedin&s. --ed of A0solute 9ale e<ecuted on 6arch 16, ,)!) 0+ 6ercedes Catalan and her children ;esus and -elia (asa is si$ulated and fictitious 0ecause the docu$ent was re&istered onl+ on 3e0ruar+ 1 , ,))1, $ore that , +ears after 6ercedes Catalan had alread+ died. -elia (asa and ;esus (asa 0oth >new that 3eliciano was inco$petent to enter into an+ contract, the+ cannot clai$ to 0e innocent purchasers of the propert+ in Auestion -Petitioners assert that their case is not 0arred 0+ prescription or laches under Article ,"), of the New Civil Code 0ecause the+ had filed their case on April ,, ,))!, even 0efore the four +ear period after 3eliciano=s death on Au&ust ,4, ,))! had 0e&un. Co'te't(o' o) BASA" *el+" 9CB Petition has N. 64R5' and A335R69 decision of CA and R'CF evidence presented 0+ the petitioners was insufficient to overco$e the presu$ption that 3eliciano was co$petent when he donated the propert+ in Auestion to 6ercedes. -donation is an act of li0eralit+ where0+ a person disposes &ratuitousl+ a thin& or ri&ht in favor of another, who accepts itF an a&ree$ent of the parties is essential. Consent in contracts presupposes the followin& reAuisitesB #,/ it should 0e intelli&ent or with an e<act notion of the $atter to which it refersF #1/ it should 0e freeF and #"/ it should 0e spontaneous. PartiesG intention $ust 0e clear and the attendance of a vice of consent, li>e an+ contract, renders the donation voida0le. 5n order for donation of propert+ to 0e valid, what is crucial is the donor=s capacit+ to &ive consent at the ti$e of the donation. Certainl+, there lies no dou0t in the fact that insanit+ i$pin&es on consent freel+ &iven. ?owever, the 0urden of provin& such incapacit+ rests upon the person who alle&es itF if no sufficient proof to this effect is presented, capacit+ will 0e presu$ed.

A stud+ of the nature of schi:ophrenia will show that 3eliciano could still 0e presu$ed capa0le of attendin& to his propert+ ri&hts. -5n persons with schi:ophrenia, there is a &radual onset of s+$pto$s, with s+$pto$s 0eco$in& increasin&l+ 0i:arre as the disease pro&resses. 'he condition i$proves #re$ission or residual sta&e/ and worsens #relapses/ in c+cles. Ad$inistration of the correct $edicine helps the patient. 9chi:ophrenia can result in a de$entin& illness si$ilar in $an+ aspects to Al:hei$er=s disease. the illness will wa< and wane over $an+ +ears, with onl+ ver+ slow deterioration of intellect. -A person sufferin& fro$ schi:ophrenia does not necessaril+ lose his co$petence to intelli&entl+ dispose his propert+. Alle&in& the e<istence of schi:ophrenia, petitioners failed to show su0stantial proof that at the date of the donation, ;une ,6, ,)5,, 3eliciano Catalan had lost total control of his $ental faculties. -R'C correctl+ held that 3eliciano was of sound $ind at that ti$e and that this condition continued to e<ist until proof to the contrar+ was adduced. 9ufficient proof of his infir$it+ to &ive consent to contracts was onl+ esta0lished when the C35 of Pan&asinan declared hi$ an inco$petent on -ece$0er 11, ,)5". -Petitioners Auestioned 3eliciano=s capacit+ at the ti$e he donated the propert+ 0ut not when he $arried Cora:on Cere:o or when he donated in their favor. Presu$ption that 3eliciano re$ained co$petent to e<ecute contracts, despite his illness, is 0olstered 0+ the e<istence of these other contracts.

Needless to state, since the donation was valid, 6ercedes had the ri&ht to sell the propert+ to who$ever she chose.H""I Not a shred of evidence has 0een presented to prove the clai$ that 6ercedes= sale of the propert+ to her children was tainted with fraud or falsehood. 5t is of little 0earin& that the -eed of 9ale was re&istered onl+ after the death of 6ercedes. Chat is $aterial is that the sale of the propert+ to -elia and ;esus (asa was le&al and 0indin& at the ti$e of its e<ecution. 'hus, the propert+ in Auestion 0elon&s to -elia and ;esus (asa. 3inall+, we note that the petitioners raised the issue of prescription and laches for the first ti$e on appeal 0efore this Court. 5t is sufficient for this Court to note that even if the present appeal had prospered, the -eed of -onation was still a voida0le, not a void, contract. As such, it re$ained 0indin& as it was not annulled in a proper action in court within four +ears.H"4I &N ,&E- -*EREO#, there 0ein& no $erit in the ar&u$ents of the petitioners, the petition is -4N54-. 'he decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66 !" is affir$ed in toto. SO OR.ERE..