G.R. No. 159567 July 31, 2007 children Alex Catalan, Librada Catalan and Zenaida Catalan.

On
February 14, 1983, Feliciano and Corazon Cerezo donated Lot 4
CORAZON CATALAN, LIBRADA CATALAN-LIM, (Plan Psu-215956) of the same OCT No. 18920 to Eulogio and
EULOGIO CATALAN, MILA CATALAN-MILAN, ZENAIDA Florida Catalan.12
CATALAN, ALEX CATALAN, DAISY CATALAN, FLORIDA
CATALAN and GEMMA CATALAN, Heirs of the late On April 1, 1997, BPI, acting as Feliciano’s guardian, filed a case for
FELICIANO CATALAN, Petitioners, Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of Possession and
vs. Ownership,13 as well as damages against the herein respondents. BPI
JOSE BASA, MANUEL BASA, LAURETA BASA, DELIA alleged that the Deed of Absolute Donation to Mercedes was void ab
BASA, JESUS BASA and ROSALINDA BASA, Heirs of the late initio, as Feliciano never donated the property to Mercedes. In
MERCEDES CATALAN, Respondents. addition, BPI averred that even if Feliciano had truly intended to give
the property to her, the donation would still be void, as he was not of
PUNO, C.J.: sound mind and was therefore incapable of giving valid consent.
Thus, it claimed that if the Deed of Absolute Donation was void ab
initio, the subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale to Delia and Jesus Basa
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the should likewise be nullified, for Mercedes Catalan had no right to sell
Revised Rules of Court of the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. the property to anyone. BPI raised doubts about the authenticity of the
CV No. 66073, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial deed of sale, saying that its registration long after the death of
Court, Branch 69, Lingayen, Pangasinan, in Civil Case No. 17666, Mercedes Catalan indicated fraud. Thus, BPI sought remuneration for
dismissing the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, incurred damages and litigation expenses.
Recovery of Possession and Ownership, and damages.
On August 14, 1997, Feliciano passed away. The original complaint
The facts, which are undisputed by the parties, follow: was amended to substitute his heirs in lieu of BPI as complainants in
Civil Case No. 17666.
On October 20, 1948, FELICIANO CATALAN (Feliciano) was
discharged from active military service. The Board of Medical On December 7, 1999, the trial court found that the evidence
Officers of the Department of Veteran Affairs found that he was unfit presented by the complainants was insufficient to overcome the
to render military service due to his "schizophrenic reaction, catatonic presumption that Feliciano was sane and competent at the time he
type, which incapacitates him because of flattening of mood and executed the deed of donation in favor of Mercedes Catalan. Thus, the
affect, preoccupation with worries, withdrawal, and sparce (sic) and court declared, the presumption of sanity or competency not having
pointless speech."1 been duly impugned, the presumption of due execution of the
donation in question must be upheld.14 It rendered judgment, viz:
On September 28, 1949, Feliciano married Corazon Cerezo. 2
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is
On June 16, 1951, a document was executed, titled "Absolute Deed of hereby rendered:
Donation,"3 wherein Feliciano allegedly donated to his sister
MERCEDES CATALAN(Mercedes) one-half of the real property 1. Dismissing plaintiff’s complaint;
described, viz:
2. Declaring the defendants Jesus Basa and Delia Basa the
A parcel of land located at Barangay Basing, Binmaley, Pangasinan. lawful owners of the land in question which is now declared
Bounded on the North by heirs of Felipe Basa; on the South by Barrio in their names under Tax Declaration No. 12911 (Exhibit
Road; On the East by heirs of Segundo Catalan; and on the West by 4);
Roman Basa. Containing an area of Eight Hundred One (801) square
meters, more or less.
3. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendants Attorney’s
fees of ₱10,000.00, and to pay the Costs.(sic)
The donation was registered with the Register of Deeds. The Bureau
of Internal Revenue then cancelled Tax Declaration No. 2876, and, in
lieu thereof, issued Tax Declaration No. 180804 to Mercedes for the SO ORDERED.15
400.50 square meters donated to her. The remaining half of the
property remained in Feliciano’s name under Tax Declaration No. Petitioners challenged the trial court’s decision before the Court of
18081.5 Appeals via a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 41 of the Revised
Rules of Court.16 The appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial
On December 11, 1953, People’s Bank and Trust Company filed court and held, viz:
Special Proceedings No. 45636 before the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan to declare Feliciano incompetent. On December 22, 1953, In sum, the Regional Trial Court did not commit a reversible error in
the trial court issued its Order for Adjudication of Incompetency for disposing that plaintiff-appellants failed to prove the insanity or
Appointing Guardian for the Estate and Fixing Allowance7 of mental incapacity of late (sic) Feliciano Catalan at the precise
Feliciano. The following day, the trial court appointed People’s Bank moment when the property in dispute was donated.
and Trust Company as Feliciano’s guardian.8 People’s Bank and
Trust Company has been subsequently renamed, and is presently Thus, all the elements for validity of contracts having been present in
known as the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI). the 1951 donation coupled with compliance with certain solemnities
required by the Civil Code in donation inter vivos of real property
On November 22, 1978, Feliciano and Corazon Cerezo donated Lots under Article 749, which provides:
1 and 3 of their property, registered under Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) No. 18920, to their son Eulogio Catalan.9 xxx

On March 26, 1979, Mercedes sold the property in issue in favor of Mercedes Catalan acquired valid title of ownership over the property
her children Delia and Jesus Basa.10 The Deed of Absolute Sale was in dispute. By virtue of her ownership, the property is completely
registered with the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan on February 20, subjected to her will in everything not prohibited by law of the
1992, and Tax Declaration No. 12911 was issued in the name of concurrence with the rights of others (Art. 428, NCC).
respondents.11
The validity of the subsequent sale dated 26 March 1979 (Exhibit 3,
On June 24, 1983, Feliciano and Corazon Cerezo donated Lot 2 of the
appellees’ Folder of Exhibits) of the property by Mercedes Catalan to
aforementioned property registered under OCT No. 18920 to theirdefendant-appellees Jesus Basa and Delia Basa must be upheld.
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS_CATALAN V. BASA (G.R. No. 159567. 07/31/2007) Page 1 of 3
Nothing of the infirmities which allegedly flawed its authenticity is children Jesus and Delia Basa is simulated and fictitious. This is
evident much less apparent in the deed itself or from the evidence allegedly borne out by the fact that the document was registered only
adduced. As correctly stated by the RTC, the fact that the Deed of on February 20, 1992, more that 10 years after Mercedes Catalan had
Absolute Sale was registered only in 1992, after the death of already died. Since Delia Basa and Jesus Basa both knew that
Mercedes Catalan does not make the sale void ab initio. Moreover, as Feliciano was incompetent to enter into any contract, they cannot
a notarized document, the deed of absolute sale carries the evidentiary claim to be innocent purchasers of the property in question. 20 Lastly,
weight conferred upon such public document with respect to its due petitioners assert that their case is not barred by prescription or laches
execution (Garrido vs. CA 236 SCRA 450). In a similar vein, under Article 1391 of the New Civil Code because they had filed their
jurisprudence has it that documents acknowledged before a notary case on April 1, 1997, even before the four year period after
public have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to Feliciano’s death on August 14, 1997 had begun.21
contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing
and more than preponderant (Salame vs. CA, 239 SCRA 256). The petition is bereft of merit, and we affirm the findings of the Court
of Appeals and the trial court.
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Decision dated
December 7, 1999 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69, is hereby A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes
affirmed. gratuitously a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. 22 Like
any other contract, an agreement of the parties is essential. Consent in
SO ORDERED.17 contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be
intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2)
Thus, petitioners filed the present appeal and raised the following it should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous.23 The parties'
issues: intention must be clear and the attendance of a vice of consent, like
any contract, renders the donation voidable.24
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS HAS DECIDED CA-G.R. CV NO. 66073 IN A In order for donation of property to be valid, what is crucial is the
WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR donor’s capacity to give consent at the time of the donation.
WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE Certainly, there lies no doubt in the fact that insanity impinges on
HONORABLE COURT IN HOLDING THAT "THE consent freely given.25 However, the burden of proving such
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT DID NOT COMMIT A incapacity rests upon the person who alleges it; if no sufficient proof
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISPOSING THAT to this effect is presented, capacity will be presumed.26
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS (PETITIONERS) FAILED
TO PROVE THE INSANITY OR MENTAL A thorough perusal of the records of the case at bar indubitably shows
INCAPACITY OF THE LATE FELICIANO CATALAN that the evidence presented by the petitioners was insufficient to
AT THE PRECISE MOMENT WHEN THE PROPERTY overcome the presumption that Feliciano was competent when he
IN DISPUTE WAS DONATED"; donated the property in question to Mercedes. Petitioners make much
ado of the fact that, as early as 1948, Feliciano had been found to be
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE CERTIFICATE OF suffering from schizophrenia by the Board of Medical Officers of the
DISABILITY FOR DISCHARGE (EXHIBIT "S") AND Department of Veteran Affairs. By itself, however, the allegation
THE REPORT OF A BOARD OF OFFICERS cannot prove the incompetence of Feliciano.
CONVENED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARMY
REGULATIONS (EXHIBITS "S-1" AND "S-2") ARE A study of the nature of schizophrenia will show that Feliciano could
ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE; still be presumed capable of attending to his property rights.
Schizophrenia was brought to the attention of the public when, in the
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF late 1800s, Emil Kraepelin, a German psychiatrist, combined
APPEALS HAS DECIDED CA-G.R. CV NO. 66073 IN A "hebrephrenia" and "catatonia" with certain paranoid states and called
WAY PROBABLY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR the condition "dementia praecox." Eugene Bleuler, a Swiss
WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE psychiatrist, modified Kraepelin’s conception in the early 1900s to
HONORABLE COURT IN UPHOLDING THE include cases with a better outlook and in 1911 renamed the condition
SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE "schizophrenia." According to medical references, in persons with
BY THE DONEE MERCEDES CATALAN TO HER schizophrenia, there is a gradual onset of symptoms, with symptoms
CHILDREN RESPONDENTS JESUS AND DELIA becoming increasingly bizarre as the disease progresses.1avvphi1 The
BASA; AND- condition improves (remission or residual stage) and worsens
(relapses) in cycles. Sometimes, sufferers may appear relatively
normal, while other patients in remission may appear strange because
4. WHETHER OR NOT CIVIL CASE NO. 17666 IS they speak in a monotone, have odd speech habits, appear to have no
BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES.18 emotional feelings and are prone to have "ideas of reference." The
latter refers to the idea that random social behaviors are directed
Petitioners aver that the presumption of Feliciano’s competence to against the sufferers.27 It has been proven that the administration of
donate property to Mercedes had been rebutted because they the correct medicine helps the patient. Antipsychotic medications help
presented more than the requisite preponderance of evidence. First, bring biochemical imbalances closer to normal in a schizophrenic.
they presented the Certificate of Disability for the Discharge of Medications reduce delusions, hallucinations and incoherent thoughts
Feliciano Catalan issued on October 20, 1948 by the Board of and reduce or eliminate chances of relapse.28 Schizophrenia can result
Medical Officers of the Department of Veteran Affairs. Second, they in a dementing illness similar in many aspects to Alzheimer’s disease.
proved that on December 22, 1953, Feliciano was judged an However, the illness will wax and wane over many years, with only
incompetent by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, and put very slow deterioration of intellect.29
under the guardianship of BPI. Based on these two pieces of
evidence, petitioners conclude that Feliciano had been suffering from From these scientific studies it can be deduced that a person suffering
a mental condition since 1948 which incapacitated him from entering from schizophrenia does not necessarily lose his competence to
into any contract thereafter, until his death on August 14, 1997. intelligently dispose his property. By merely alleging the existence of
Petitioners contend that Feliciano’s marriage to Corazon Cerezo on schizophrenia, petitioners failed to show substantial proof that at the
September 28, 1948 does not prove that he was not insane at the time date of the donation, June 16, 1951, Feliciano Catalan had lost total
he made the questioned donation. They further argue that the control of his mental faculties. Thus, the lower courts correctly held
donations Feliciano executed in favor of his successors (Decision, that Feliciano was of sound mind at that time and that this condition
CA-G.R. CV No. 66073) also cannot prove his competency because continued to exist until proof to the contrary was adduced.30
these donations were approved and confirmed in the guardianship Sufficient proof of his infirmity to give consent to contracts was only
proceedings.19 In addition, petitioners claim that the Deed of Absolute
Sale executed on March 26, 1979 by Mercedes Catalan and her
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS_CATALAN V. BASA (G.R. No. 159567. 07/31/2007) Page 2 of 3
established when the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan declared
him an incompetent on December 22, 1953.31

It is interesting to note that the petitioners questioned Feliciano’s

capacity at the time he donated the property, yet did not see fit to
question his mental competence when he entered into a contract of
marriage with Corazon Cerezo or when he executed deeds of
donation of his other properties in their favor. The presumption that
Feliciano remained competent to execute contracts, despite his illness,
is bolstered by the existence of these other contracts. Competency and
freedom from undue influence, shown to have existed in the other
acts done or contracts executed, are presumed to continue until the
contrary is shown.32

Needless to state, since the donation was valid, Mercedes had the
right to sell the property to whomever she chose.33 Not a shred of
evidence has been presented to prove the claim that Mercedes’ sale of
the property to her children was tainted with fraud or falsehood. It is
of little bearing that the Deed of Sale was registered only after the
death of Mercedes. What is material is that the sale of the property to
Delia and Jesus Basa was legal and binding at the time of its
execution. Thus, the property in question belongs to Delia and Jesus
Basa.

Finally, we note that the petitioners raised the issue of prescription

and laches for the first time on appeal before this Court. It is
sufficient for this Court to note that even if the present appeal had
prospered, the Deed of Donation was still a voidable, not a void,
contract. As such, it remained binding as it was not annulled in a
proper action in court within four years.34

IN VIEW WHEREOF, there being no merit in the arguments of the

petitioners, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66073 is affirmed in toto.

SO ORDERED.

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS_CATALAN V. BASA (G.R. No. 159567. 07/31/2007) Page 3 of 3