Esperanza C.

Carinan vs Spouses Gavino Cueto and Carmelita Cueto

G.R. No. 198636
October 8 2014
Facts:
The respondent spouses alleged that in May 1986 that the petitioner and her husband
acquired the rights to a parcel of land in Laguna under the name of the GSIS and were to
assume payment of the monthly amortizations. The petitioner and her husband did not pay
several amortizations, thus the GSIS planned to cancel the conditional sale in 2005.
Petitioner, who was widowed by then, went to Gavino, her brother, for financial help and the
respondents paid the total obligation to GSIS along with the payment for transfer and
renovation of the residential house. The petitioner and Jazer, the petitioner's son, executed a
Deed of Absolute Sale with the condition to buy the land back within three years. The
petitioner surrendered the TCT to the respondents.
The respondents demanded from the petitioner to fulfill the transfer of the property through
the deed of sale by the petitioner and her son did not comply. The respondents filed with the
RTC seeking refund of the total expenses paid plus damages and attorney's fees.
Petitioner countered saying that it was donation and the payment was made out of generosity
and pity towards the petitioner and there was no written or oral agreement for transfer or
repayment.
The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents reasoning that such a large amount paid by the
respondent was a loan, not a donation, and if the intention was donation, the petitioner should
have kept possession of the title. The RTC cannot compel the petitioner to transfer the property
since it was unenforceable as it was not in writing.
The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Issue:
WON the agreement was a contract of loan or donation
Held:
The SC affirmed the decision of the RTC and CA
The SC ruled that the purely gratuitous act was not supported by records citing the Civil Code
that any donation over Php5000 shall be in writing otherwise it is void. The formal
requirements are mandatory according to Article 748 and non compliance results in a void
donation.
Although giving help to someone in need, it does not mean such help equates to a donation
and would not contradict a claim for the return of the aid given. The petitioner imputed deceit
on the part of the respondent, a serious charge that cannot be proven by mere allegation.
The factual findings of the trial court and affirmed by the CA will not be disturbed. Such
findings are conclusive upon the SC when supported by evidence on record. The petitioner also
introduced the issues of co-ownership and builders in bad faith. Such factual issues cannot be
raised on a petition for reviews on certiorari and such defenses cannot be raised for the first
time on appeal.