PAJARILLO VS IAC 176 SCRA 340

FACTS:

Perfecta baleen died in 1945 leaving a 28-hectare lot. Perfecta was

survived by sister Juana and brother Felipe. May 1946 Juana and
Felipe executed an Extrajudicial Sale of the Estate of Perfecta, which
states that Felipe and Juana agreed to carryout the requests of
perfecta that in consideration of her love and affection it be donated
to Salud who is the daughter of Juana. June 1946 Salud executed the
following public instrument which states: that I Salud the only done
do hereby receive and accept this donation and further express my
gratitude for the kindness and liberality of the donors, Felipe and
Juana.1951, acceding to the request of her mother Juana, Salud
transferred possession of the lot to her mother who was them living
Sith Claudio Saluds brother and his family. During the period they
were occupying the land, Claudio paid realty taxes. May 25, 1956
Juana executed a deed of absolute sale conveying the land to
Claudio for 12,000. Claudio had the land registered in his name and
was issue. Oct.1963, Juana died. 1965 Salud filed a complaint for
reconveyance on the ground that deed of sale in favor of Claudio
was fictitious and its registration was null and void. Claudio argues
that the fact that acceptance was made in separate instrument was
not noted in both instruments as required by the civil code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the donation is valid.

HELD:

YES. It is true that there is nothing in either of the two instruments

showing that authentic notice of the acceptance was made by salud
to felipe. And while the first instrument contains the statement that
the done does hereby accept this donation and does hereby
express her gratitude for the kindness and liberality of the donor
the only signatories thereof were Felipe and Juana.. That was in fact
the reason for separate instrument f acceptance signed by Salud a
month later. A strict interpretation of art 633 of the old civil code,
can lead to no other conclusion that on the annulment of the
donation for being defective in for. This would be in keeping with the
unmistakable language of art. 633. A literal adherence to the
requirement of the law might result not in justice to the parties but
conversely a distortion of their intentions it is also a policy of the
court to avoid such an interpretation. The purpose of the formal
requirement is to insure that the acceptance of the donation is duly
communicated to the donor. Here it is not even, suggested that
Juana was unaware of the acceptance for she in fact confirmed it
later and requested that the donated land be not registered during
her lifetime by Salud. The donation cannot be declared ineffective
just because there is no notation in the EJS of donees acceptance
that would be placing too much stress on mere form over the
substance. It would also be disregard the clear reality of the
acceptance of the donation as manifested in these separate
instrument and a slater acknowledge and as latter acknowledged by
Juana.