Scribd
Upload
278 views2 pages

Quilala V Alcantara

This case discusses the validity of a donation of real property from Catalina Quilala to Violeta Quilala. While the deed of donation was signed by both parties and witnesses, the acknowledgment section on the second page only mentioned Catalina and not Violeta. The lower courts ruled this made it a private not public document, invalidating the donation. However, the Supreme Court held that as long as the entire document was notarized, it was a public instrument, even if the acknowledgment only mentioned the donor. The placement of signatures and lack of explicit acknowledgment by the donee did not invalidate the donation so long as acceptance was clear on the first page. The Supreme Court therefore reversed

Uploaded by

Rosana Villordon Solite
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
278 views2 pages

Quilala V Alcantara

This case discusses the validity of a donation of real property from Catalina Quilala to Violeta Quilala. While the deed of donation was signed by both parties and witnesses, the acknowledgment section on the second page only mentioned Catalina and not Violeta. The lower courts ruled this made it a private not public document, invalidating the donation. However, the Supreme Court held that as long as the entire document was notarized, it was a public instrument, even if the acknowledgment only mentioned the donor. The placement of signatures and lack of explicit acknowledgment by the donee did not invalidate the donation so long as acceptance was clear on the first page. The Supreme Court therefore reversed

Uploaded by

Rosana Villordon Solite
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

QUILALA vs.

ALCANTARA

TOPIC: MAKING ANG ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION

G.R No.: 132681 December 3, 2001

FACTS:

On February 20, 1981, Catalina Quilala (donor) executed a "Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos" in
favor of Violeta Quilala (donee) over a parcel of land located in Sta. Cruz, Manila and registered in her
name.

The "Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos" consists of two pages. The first page contains the deed of
donation itself, and is signed on the bottom portion by Catalina Quilala and Violeta Quilala, and two
instrumental witnesses. The second page contains the Acknowledgment, which states merely that
Catalina Quilala personally appeared before the notary public and acknowledged that the donation was
her free and voluntary act and deed. There appear on the left-hand margin of the second page the
signatures of Catalina Quilala and one of the witnesses, and on the right-hand margin the signatures of
Violeta Quilala and the other witness

On November 7, 1983, Catalina Quilala died. Violeta Quilala likewise died on May 22, 1984. Petitioner
Ricky Quilala alleges that he is the surviving son of Violeta Quilala.

Meanwhile, respondents Gliceria Alcantara, Leonora Alcantara, Ines Reyes and Juan Reyes, claiming to
be Catalina's only surviving relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity instituted an action
for the declaration of nullity of the donation inter vivos, and for the cancellation of the TCT in the name
of Violeta Quilala.

The trial court rendered a decision declaring null and void the deed of donation of real property inter
vivos executed by Catalina Quilala in favor of Violeta Quilala. The trial court found that since it was
acknowledged before a notary public only by the donor, Catalina, there was no acceptance by Violeta of
the donation in a public instrument. The decision was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE: Whether or not the donation executed by Catalina in favor of Violeta is valid

HELD: valid even if the acknowledgment was only signed by the donor

Below the terms and stipulations of the donation, the donor, donee and their witnesses affixed their
signature. However, the Acknowledgment appearing on the second page mentioned only the donor,
Catalina Quilala. Thus, the trial court ruled that for Violeta's failure to acknowledge her acceptance
before the notary public, the same was set forth merely on a private instrument, i.e., the first page of
the instrument.
We disagree.

As provided for in Section 112, paragraph 2 of PD No. 1529, the second page of the deed of donation, on
which the Acknowledgment appears, was signed by the donor and one witness on the left-hand margin.
The donee and the other witness signed on the right hand margin. Surely, the requirement that the
contracting parties and their witnesses should sign on the left-hand margin of the instrument is not
absolute. The intendment of the law merely is to ensure that each and every page of the instrument is
authenticated by the parties. The requirement is designed to avoid the falsification of the contract after
the same has already been duly executed by the parties. Hence, a contracting party affixes his signature
on each page of the instrument to certify that he is agreeing to everything that is written thereon at the
time of signing.

Simply put, the specification of the location of the signature is merely directory. The fact that one of the
parties signs on the wrong side of the page does not invalidate the document.

In the same vein, the lack of an acknowledgment by the donee before the notary public does not also
render the donation null and void. The instrument should be treated in its entirety. It cannot be
considered a private document in part and a public document in another part. The fact that it was
acknowledged before a notary public converts the deed of donation in its entirety a public instrument.
The fact that the donee was not mentioned by the notary public in the acknowledgment is of no
moment. To be sure, it is the conveyance that should be acknowledged as a free and voluntary act. In
any event, the donee signed on the second page, which contains the Acknowledgment only. Her
acceptance, which is explicitly set forth on the first page of the notarized deed of donation, was made in
a public instrument.

Petition is granted. The appealed decision of the CA is reversed.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy