SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 111904. October 5, 2000.]

SPS. AGRIPINO GESTOPA and ISABEL SILARIO GESTOPA , petitioners,

vs . COURT OF APPEALS and MERCEDES DANLAG y PILAPIL,
respondents.

Batiquin & Batiquin Law Office for petitioners.

Danilo L. Pilapil for private respondent.

SYNOPSIS

Sometime in 1965 and 1966, three (3) deeds of donation mortis causa over several
parcels of unregistered land were executed in favor of Mercedes Danlag y Pilapil by
spouses Diego and Catalina Danlag. In January 1973, Diego, with the consent of Catalina,
executed a deed of donation inter vivos over said parcels of land again in favor of
respondent Mercedes. This contained the condition that the spouses Danlag shall continue
to enjoy the fruits of the land during their lifetime. Likewise, it imposed a limitation on
Mercedes' right to sell the land during the lifetime of the spouses without their consent
and approval. However, years later, spouses Danlag sold several parcels of the land so
donated to spouses Gestopa. Thus, Mercedes filed with the Regional Trial Court a petition
for quieting of title, the main issue being the nature of the donation executed in favor of
Mercedes. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed
this judgment. Hence, this petition for review.
The granting clause in the Deed of Donation showed that Diego donated the properties out
of love and affection for the spouse. This is a mark of a donation inter vivos. The
reservation of lifetime usufruct indicates that the donor intended to transfer the naked
ownership over the properties. The donor reserved sufficient properties for his
maintenance indicating that the donor intended to part with the parcels of land donated.
Lastly, the donee accepted the donation. Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter
vivos.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP; DONATIONS; TO DETERMINE

WHETHER DONATION IS INTER VIVOS OR MORTIS CAUSA, INTENT OF DONOR MUST BE
ASCERTAINED. Crucial in resolving whether the donation was inter vivos or mortis causa
is the determination of whether the donor intended to transfer the ownership over the
properties upon the execution of the deed. In ascertaining the intention of the donor, all of
the deed's provisions must be read together.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. The granting clause shows that Diego donated the
properties out of love and affection for the donee. This is a mark of a donation inter vivos.
Second, the reservation of lifetime usufruct indicates that the donor intended to transfer
the naked ownership over the properties. As correctly posed by the Court of Appeals, what
was the need for such reservation if the donor and his spouse remained the owners of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 properties? Third, the donor reserved sufficient properties for his maintenance in
accordance with his standing in society, indicating that the donor intended to part with the
six parcels of land. Lastly, the donee accepted the donation.
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; A DEED OF REVOCATION, THE VALIDITY OF WHICH IS BEING
ASSAILED, CANNOT BE USED TO SHOW DONOR'S INTENT. As correctly observed by the
Court of Appeals, the Danlag spouses were aware of the difference between the two
donations. If they did not intend to donate inter vivos, they would not again donate the four
lots already donated mortis causa. Petitioner's counter argument that this proposition was
erroneous because six years after, the spouses changed their intention with the deed of
revocation, is not only disingenuous but also fallacious. Petitioners cannot use the deed of
revocation to show the spouses' intent because its validity is one of the issues in this case.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ACCEPTANCE CLAUSE IS A MARK OF A DONATION INTER VIVOS. In
the case of Alejandro vs. Geraldez, 78 SCRA 245 (1977), we said that an acceptance
clause is a mark that the donation is inter vivos. Acceptance is a requirement for donations
inter vivos. Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are not required to be
accepted by the donees during the donors' lifetime.
5. ID.; ID.; ID.; LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT TO SELL, AN IMPLICATION THAT
OWNERSHIP HAD PASSED TO THE DONEE. A limitation on the right to sell during the
donors' lifetime implied that ownership had passed to the donees and donation was
already effective during the donors' lifetime.
6. ID.; ID.; ID.; REVOCATION; GENERALLY, A VALID DONATION, ONCE ACCEPTED IS
IRREVOCABLE; EXCEPTIONS. A valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable,
except on account of officiousness, failure by the donee to comply with the charges
imposed in the donation, or ingratitude. The donor-spouses did not invoke any of these
reasons in the deed of revocation.
7. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE, PRESUMPTIONS; REGULARITY IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF OFFICIAL DUTIES, PRESUMED UNLESS PROVEN OTHERWISE. Petitioners aver that
Mercedes' tax declarations in her name can not be a basis in determining the donor's
intent. They claim that it is easy to get tax declarations from the government offices such
that tax declarations are not considered proofs of ownership. However, unless proven
otherwise, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. ACaEcH

8. ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT BY APPELLATE COURT GENERALLY UPHELD IN A

PETITION FOR REVIEW. As a rule, a finding of fact by the appellate court, especially
when it is supported by evidence on record, is binding on us.

DECISION

QUISUMBING , J : p

This petition for review, 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assails the decision 2 of the
Court of Appeals dated August 31, 1993, in CA-G.R. CV No. 38266, which reversed the
judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 5.
The facts, as culled from the records, are as follows:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 Spouses Diego and Catalina Danlag were the owners of six parcels of unregistered lands.
They executed three deeds of donation mortis causa, two of which are dated March 4,
1965 and another dated October 13, 1966, in favor of private respondent Mercedes
Danlag-Pilapil. 4 The first deed pertained to parcels 1 & 2 with Tax Declaration Nos. 11345
and 11347, respectively. The second deed pertained to parcel 3, with TD No. 018613. The
last deed pertained to parcel 4 with TD No. 016821. All deeds contained the reservation of
the rights of the donors (1) to amend, cancel or revoke the donation during their lifetime,
and (2) to sell, mortgage, or encumber the properties donated during the donors' lifetime,
if deemed necessary.
On January 16, 1973, Diego Danlag, with the consent of his wife, Catalina Danlag, executed
a deed of donation inter vivos 5 covering the aforementioned parcels of land plus two other
parcels with TD Nos. 11351 and 11343, respectively, again in favor of private respondent
Mercedes. This contained two conditions, that (1) the Danlag spouses shall continue to
enjoy the fruits of the land during their lifetime, and that (2) the donee can not sell or
dispose of the land during the lifetime of the said spouses, without their prior consent and
approval. Mercedes caused the transfer of the parcels' tax declaration to her name and
paid the taxes on them.
On June 28, 1979 and August 21, 1979, Diego and Catalina Danlag sold parcels 3 and 4 to
herein petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Agripino Gestopa. On September 29, 1979, the Danlags
executed a deed of revocation 6 recovering the six parcels of land subject of the aforecited
deed of donation inter vivos.
On March 1, 1983, Mercedes Pilapil (herein private respondent) filed with the RTC a
petition against the Gestopas and the Danlags, for quieting of title 7 over the above parcels
of land. She alleged that she was an illegitimate daughter of Diego Danlag; that she lived
and rendered incalculable beneficial services to Diego and his mother, Maura Danlag, when
the latter was still alive. In recognition of the services she rendered, Diego executed a Deed
of Donation on March 20, 1973, conveying to her the six (6) parcels of land. She accepted
the donation in the same instrument, openly and publicly exercised rights of ownership
over the donated properties, and caused the transfer of the tax declarations to her name.
Through machination, intimidation and undue influence, Diego persuaded the husband of
Mercedes, Eulalio Pilapil, to buy two of the six parcels covered by the deed of donation.
Said donation inter vivos was coupled with conditions and, according to Mercedes, since
its perfection, she had complied with all of them; that she had not been guilty of any act of
ingratitude; and that respondent Diego had no legal basis in revoking the subject donation
and then in selling the two parcels of land to the Gestopas. aTIEcA

In their opposition, the Gestopas and the Danlags averred that the deed of donation dated
January 16, 1973 was null and void because it was obtained by Mercedes through
machinations and undue influence. Even assuming it was validly executed, the intention
was for the donation to take effect upon the death of the donor. Further, the donation was
void for it left the donor, Diego Danlag, without any property at all.
On December 27, 1991, the trial court rendered its decision, thus:
"WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the Court hereby renders judgment in
favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff:
1. Declaring the Donations Mortis Causa and Inter Vivos as revoked, and,
therefore, has (sic) no legal effect and force of law.
2. Declaring Diego Danlag the absolute and exclusive owner of the six (6)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 parcels of land mentioned in the Deed of revocation (Exh. P-plaintiff, Exh.
6-defendant Diego Danlag).

3. Declaring the Deeds of Sale executed by Diego Danlag in favor of spouses

Agripino Gestopa and Isabel Gestopa dated June 28, 1979 (Exh. S-plaintiff;
Exh. 18-defendant); Deed of Sale dated December 18, 1979 (Exh. T-
plaintiff; Exh. 9-defendant); Deed of Sale dated September 14, 1979 (Exh.
8); Deed of Sale dated June 30, 1975 (Exh. U); Deed of Sale dated March
13, 1978 (Exh X) as valid and enforceable duly executed in accordance
with the formalities required by law.

4. Ordering all tax declaration issued in the name of Mercedes Danlag y

Pilapil covering the parcel of land donated cancelled and further restoring
all the tax declarations previously cancelled, except parcels nos. 1 and 5
described, in the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos (Exh. "1") and Deed of Sale
(Exh. "2") executed by defendant in favor of plaintiff and her husband.

5. With respect to the contract of sale of abovestated parcels of land, vendor

Diego Danlag and spouse or their estate have the alternative remedies of
demanding the balance of the agreed price with legal interest, or rescission
of the contract of sale.
SO ORDERED." 8

In rendering the above decision, the trial court found that the reservation clause in all the
deeds of donation indicated that Diego Danlag did not make any donation; that the
purchase by Mercedes of the two parcels of land covered by the Deed of Donation Inter
Vivos bolstered this conclusion; that Mercedes failed to rebut the allegations of
ingratitude she committed against Diego Danlag; and that Mercedes committed fraud and
machination in preparing all the deeds of donation without explaining to Diego Danlag their
contents.
Mercedes appealed to the Court of Appeals and argued that the trial court erred in (1)
declaring the donation dated January 16, 1973 as mortis causa and that the same was
already revoked on the ground of ingratitude; (2) finding that Mercedes purchased from
Diego Danlag the two parcels of land already covered by the above donation and that she
was only able to pay three thousand pesos, out of the total amount of twenty thousand
pesos; (3) failing to declare that Mercedes was an acknowledged natural child of Diego
Danlag.
On August 31, 1993, the appellate court reversed the trial court. It ruled:
"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and a new
judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. Declaring the deed of donation inter vivos dated January 16, 1973 as not
having been revoked and consequently the same remains in full force and effect;
2. Declaring the Revocation of Donation dated June 4, 1979 to be null and
void and therefore of no force and effect;
3. Declaring Mercedes Danlag Pilapil as the absolute and exclusive owner of
the six (6) parcels of land specified in the above-cited deed of donation inter
vivos;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 4. Declaring the Deed of Sale executed by Diego Danlag in favor of spouses
Agripino and Isabel Gestopa dated June 28, 1979 (Exhibits S and 18), Deed of
Sale dated December 18, 1979 (Exhibits T and 19), Deed of Sale dated September
14, 1979 (Exhibit 8), Deed of Sale dated June 30, 1975 (Exhibit U), Deed of Sale
dated March 13, 1978 (Exhibit X) as well as the Deed of Sale in favor of Eulalio
Danlag dated December 27, 1978 (Exhibit 2) not to have been validly executed;
5. Declaring the above-mentioned deeds of sale to be null and void and
therefore of no force and effect;
6. Ordering spouses Agripino Gestopa and Isabel Silario Gestopa to reconvey
within thirty (30) days from the finality of the instant judgment to Mercedes
Danlag Pilapil the parcels of land above-specified, regarding which titles have
been subsequently fraudulently secured, namely those covered by O.C.T. T-17836
and O.C.T. No. 17523.
7. Failing to do so, ordering the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court (Branch V) at Cebu City to effect such reconveyance of the parcels of land
covered by O.C.T. T-17836 and 17523.

SO ORDERED." 9

The Court of Appeals held that the reservation by the donor of lifetime usufruct indicated
that he transferred to Mercedes the ownership over the donated properties; that the right
to sell belonged to the donee, and the donor's right referred to that of merely giving
consent; that the donor changed his intention by donating inter vivos properties already
donated mortis causa; that the transfer to Mercedes' name of the tax declarations
pertaining to the donated properties implied that the donation was inter vivos; and that
Mercedes did not purchase two of the six parcels of land donated to her.
Hence, this instant petition for review filed by the Gestopa spouses, asserting that:
"THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, TWELFTH DIVISION, HAS GRAVELY
ERRED IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE COURT A QUO." 1 0

Before us, petitioners allege that the appellate court overlooked the fact that the donor did
not only reserve the right to enjoy the fruits of the properties, but also prohibited the donee
from selling or disposing the land without the consent and approval of the Danlag
spouses. This implied that the donor still had control and ownership over the donated
properties. Hence, the donation was post mortem.
Crucial in resolving whether the donation was inter vivos or mortis causa is the
determination of whether the donor intended to transfer the ownership over the properties
upon the execution of the deed. 1 1
In ascertaining the intention of the donor, all of the deed's provisions must be read
together. 1 2 The deed of donation dated January 16, 1973, in favor of Mercedes contained
the following:
"That for and in consideration of the love and affection which the Donor inspires
in the Donee and as an act of liberality and generosity, the Donor hereby gives,
donates, transfers and conveys by way of donation unto the herein Donee, her
heirs, assigns and successors, the above-described parcels of land;
That it is the condition of this donation that the Donor shall continue to enjoy all
the fruits of the land during his lifetime and that of his spouse and that the donee
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 cannot sell or otherwise, dispose of the lands without the prior consent and
approval by the Donor and her spouse during their lifetime.
xxx xxx xxx
That for the same purpose as hereinbefore stated, the Donor further states that he
has reserved for himself sufficient properties in full ownership or in usufruct
enough for his maintenance of a decent livelihood in consonance with his
standing in society.
That the Donee hereby accepts the donation and expresses her thanks and
gratitude for the kindness and generosity of the Donor." 1 3

Note rst that the granting clause shows that Diego donated the properties out of love
and affection for the donee. This is a mark of a donation inter vivos. 1 4 Second, the
reservation of lifetime usufruct indicates that the donor intended to transfer the naked
ownership over the properties. As correctly posed by the Court of Appeals, what was
the need for such reservation if the donor and his spouse remained the owners of the
properties? Third, the donor reserved suf cient properties for his maintenance in
accordance with his standing in society, indicating that the donor intended to part with
the six parcels of land. 1 5 Lastly, the donee accepted the donation. In the case of
Alejandro vs. Geraldez, 78 SCRA 245 (1977), we said that an acceptance clause is a
mark that the donation is inter vivos. Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter
vivos. Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are not required to be
accepted by the donees during the donors' lifetime. acHCSD

Consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that the right to dispose of
the properties belonged to the donee. The donor's right to give consent was merely
intended to protect his usufructuary interests. In Alejandro, we ruled that a limitation on the
right to sell during the donors' lifetime implied that ownership had passed to the donees
and donation was already effective during the donors' lifetime.
The attending circumstances in the execution of the subject donation also demonstrated
the real intent of the donor to transfer the ownership over the subject properties upon its
execution. 1 6 Prior to the execution of donation inter vivos, the Danlag spouses already
executed three donations mortis causa. As correctly observed by the Court of Appeals, the
Danlag spouses were aware of the difference between the two donations. If they did not
intend to donate inter vivos, they would not again donate the four lots already donated
mortis causa. Petitioners' counter argument that this proposition was erroneous because
six years after, the spouses changed their intention with the deed of revocation, is not only
disingenious but also fallacious. Petitioners cannot use the deed of revocation to show the
spouses' intent because its validity is one of the issues in this case.
Petitioners aver that Mercedes' tax declarations in her name can not be a basis in
determining the donor's intent. They claim that it is easy to get tax declarations from the
government offices such that tax declarations are not considered proofs of ownership.
However, unless proven otherwise, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties. 1 7 We find that petitioners did not overcome this presumption of
regularity in the issuance of the tax declarations. We also note that the Court of Appeals
did not refer to the tax declarations as proofs of ownership but only as evidence of the
intent by the donor to transfer ownership.
Petitioners assert that since private respondent purchased two of the six parcels of land
from the donor, she herself did not believe the donation was inter vivos. As aptly noted by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 the Court of Appeals, however, it was private respondent's husband who purchased the
two parcels of land.
As a rule, a finding of fact by the appellate court, especially when it is supported by
evidence on record, is binding on us. 1 8 On the alleged purchase by her husband of two
parcels, it is reasonable to infer that the purchase was without private respondent's
consent. Purchase by her husband would make the properties conjugal to her own
disadvantage. That the purchase is against her self-interest, weighs strongly in her favor
and gives credence to her claim that her husband was manipulated and unduly influenced
to make the purchase, in the first place.

Was the revocation valid? A valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable, except on
account of officiousness, failure by the donee to comply with the charges imposed in the
donation, or ingratitude. 1 9 The donor-spouses did not invoke any of these reasons in the
deed of revocation. The deed merely stated:
WHEREAS , while the said donation was a donation Inter Vivos, our intention
thereof is that of Mortis Causa so as we could be sure that-in case of our death,
the above-described properties will be inherited and/or succeeded by Mercedes
Danlag de Pilapil; and that said intention is clearly shown in paragraph 3 of said
donation to the effect that the Donee cannot dispose and/or sell the properties
donated during our life-time, and that we are the one enjoying all the fruits
thereof." 2 0

Petitioners cited Mercedes' vehemence in prohibiting the donor to gather coconut trees
and her filing of instant petition for quieting of title. There is nothing on record, however,
showing that private respondent prohibited the donors from gathering coconuts. Even
assuming that Mercedes prevented the donor from gathering coconuts, this could hardly
be considered an act covered by Article 765 of the Civil Code. 2 1 Nor does this Article
cover respondent's filing of the petition for quieting of title, where she merely asserted
what she believed was her right under the law. AcHaTE

Finally, the records do not show that the donor-spouses instituted any action to revoke the
donation in accordance with Article 769 of the Civil Code. 2 2 Consequently, the supposed
revocation on September 29, 1979, had no legal effect.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court
of Appeals dated August 31, 1993, is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED. ASTIED

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 3-10.

2. Id. at 21-33.
3. Id. at 10-20.
4. Records, pp. 61-65.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com

 5. Id. at 66.
6. Id. at 78-79.
7. Id. at 1-4.
8. Rollo, pp. 19-20.
9. Id. at 31-32.
10. Id. at 5.
11. Reyes vs. Mosqueda, 187 SCRA 661,671 (1990).
12. Alejandro vs. Geraldez, 78 SCRA 245, 261 (1977).
13. Records, p. 66 (back page).
14. Vita vs. Montanano, 194 SCRA 180, 190 (1991).
15. Reyes vs. Mosqueda, 187 SCRA 661, 671 (1990); Concepcion vs. Concepcion, 91 Phil.
823, 827 (1952).
16. Sicad vs. CA, 294 SCRA 183,191 (1998).
17. Revised Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3 (m).

18. Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 670, 678 (1998).
19. Vda. de Arceo vs. CA, 185 SCRA 489, 497 (1990); Alejandro vs. Geraldez, 78 SCRA 245,
267 (1977).
20. Rollo, p. 79.
21. Art. 765 The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor, by reason
of ingratitude in the following cases: (1) If the donee should commit some offense
against the person, the honor or the property of the donor, or of his wife or children under
his parental authority. (2) If the donee imputes to the donor any criminal offense, or any
act involving moral turpitude, even though he should prove it, unless the crime or the act
has been committed against the donee himself, his wife or children under his authority;
(3) If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally bound to give
support to the donor.
22. Article 769. The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude cannot be
renounced in advance. This action prescribes within one year, to be counted from the
time the donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him to bring the action.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016 cdasiaonline.com