G.R. No.
L-67888 October 8, 1985 to a Deed of Donation, acceptance of which by the donee
is necessary to give it validity. Further, it is averred that the
IMELDA ONG, ET AL., petitioners, donee, Sandra Maruzzo, being a minor, had no legal
vs. personality and therefore incapable of accepting the
ALFREDO ONG, ET AL., respondents. donation.
Faustino Y Bautista and Fernando M. Mangubat for private Upon admission of the documents involved, the parties
respondent. filed their responsive memoranda and submitted the case
for decision.
On December 12, 1983, the trial court rendered judgment
in favor of respondent Maruzzo and held that the Quitclaim
RELOVA, J.:
Deed is equivalent to a Deed of Sale and, hence, there was
a valid conveyance in favor of the latter.
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision,
dated June 20, 1984, of the Intermediate Appellate Court,
Petitioners appealed to the respondent Intermediate
in AC-G.R. No. CV-01748, affirming the judgment of the
Appellate Court. They reiterated their argument below and,
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Metro Manila. Petitioner
in addition, contended that the One (P1.00) Peso
Imelda Ong assails the interpretation given by respondent
consideration is not a consideration at all to sustain the
Appellate Court to the questioned Quitclaim Deed.
ruling that the Deed of Quitclaim is equivalent to a sale.
Records show that on February 25, 1976 Imelda Ong, for
On June 20, 1984, respondent Intermediate Appellate
and in consideration of One (P1.00) Peso and other
Court promulgated its Decision affirming the appealed
valuable considerations, executed in favor of private
judgment and held that the Quitclaim Deed is a
respondent Sandra Maruzzo, then a minor, a Quitclaim
conveyance of property with a valid cause or consideration;
Deed whereby she transferred, released, assigned and
that the consideration is the One (P1.00) Peso which is
forever quit-claimed to Sandra Maruzzo, her heirs and
clearly stated in the deed itself; that the apparent
assigns, all her rights, title, interest and participation in the
inadequacy is of no moment since it is the usual practice in
ONE-HALF (½) undivided portion of the parcel of land,
deeds of conveyance to place a nominal amount although
particularly described as follows:
there is a more valuable consideration given.
A parcel of land (Lot 10-B of the
Not satisfied with the decision of the respondent
subdivision plan (LRC) Psd 157841,
Intermediate Appellate Court, petitioners came to Us
being a portion of Lot 10, Block 18,
questioning the interpretation given by the former to this
Psd-13288, LRC (GLRC) Record No.
particular document.
2029, situated in the Municipality of
Makati, Province of Rizal, Island of
Luzon ... containing an area of ONE On March 15, 1985, respondent Sandra Maruzzo, through
HUNDRED AND TWENTY FIVE (125) her guardian ad litem Alfredo Ong, filed an Omnibus Motion
SQUARE METERS, more or less. informing this Court that she has reached the age of
majority as evidenced by her Birth Certificate and she
prays that she be substituted as private respondent in
On November 19, 1980, Imelda Ong revoked the aforesaid
place of her guardian ad litem Alfredo Ong. On April 15,
Deed of Quitclaim and, thereafter, on January 20, 1982
1985, the Court issued a resolution granting the same.
donated the whole property described above to her son,
Rex Ong-Jimenez.
A careful perusal of the subject deed reveals that the
conveyance of the one- half (½) undivided portion of the
On June 20, 1983, Sandra Maruzzo, through her guardian
above-described property was for and in consideration of
(ad litem) Alfredo Ong, filed with the Regional Trial Court of
the One (P 1.00) Peso and the other valuable
Makati, Metro Manila an action against petitioners, for the
considerations (emphasis supplied) paid by private
recovery of ownership/possession and nullification of the
respondent Sandra Maruzzo through her representative,
Deed of Donation over the portion belonging to her and for
Alfredo Ong, to petitioner Imelda Ong. Stated differently,
Accounting.
the cause or consideration is not the One (P1.00) Peso
alone but also the other valuable considerations. As aptly
In their responsive pleading, petitioners claimed that the stated by the Appellate Court-
Quitclaim Deed is null and void inasmuch as it is equivalent
... although the cause is not stated in that "the major premise thereof is based upon the fact that
the contract it is presumed that it is the consideration stated in the deeds of sale in favor of
existing unless the debtor proves the Reyes and the Abellas is P1.00. It is not unusual, however,
contrary (Article 1354 of the Civil in deeds of conveyance adhering to the Anglo-Saxon
Code). One of the disputable practice of stating that the consideration given is the sum of
presumptions is that there is a sufficient P1.00, although the actual consideration may have been
cause of the contract (Section 5, (r), much more. Moreover, assuming that said consideration of
Rule 131, Rules of Court). It is a legal P1.00 is suspicious, this circumstance, alone, does not
presumption of sufficient cause or necessarily justify the inference that Reyes and the Abellas
consideration supporting a contract were not purchasers in good faith and for value. Neither
even if such cause is not stated therein does this inference warrant the conclusion that the sales
(Article 1354, New Civil Code of the were null and void ab initio. Indeed, bad faith and
Philippines.) This presumption cannot inadequacy of the monetary consideration do not render a
be overcome by a simple assertion of conveyance inexistent, for the assignor's liberality may be
lack of consideration especially when sufficient cause for a valid contract (Article 1350, Civil
the contract itself states that Code), whereas fraud or bad faith may render either
consideration was given, and the same rescissible or voidable, although valid until annulled, a
has been reduced into a public contract concerning an object certain entered into with a
instrument with all due formalities and cause and with the consent of the contracting parties, as in
solemnities. To overcome the the case at bar."
presumption of consideration the
alleged lack of consideration must be WHEREFORE. the appealed decision of the Intermediate
shown by preponderance of evidence Appellate Court should be, as it is hereby AFFIRMED, with
in a proper action. (Samanilla vs, costs against herein petitioners.
Cajucom, et al., 107 Phil. 432).
SO ORDERED.
The execution of a deed purporting to convey ownership of
a realty is in itself prima facie evidence of the existence of a
valuable consideration, the party alleging lack of
consideration has the burden of proving such allegation.
(Caballero, et al. vs. Caballero, et al., (CA), 45 O.G. 2536).
Moreover, even granting that the Quitclaim deed in
question is a donation, Article 741 of the Civil Code
provides that the requirement of the acceptance of the
donation in favor of minor by parents of legal
representatives applies only to onerous and conditional
donations where the donation may have to assume certain
charges or burdens (Article 726, Civil Code). The
acceptance by a legal guardian of a simple or pure
donation does not seem to be necessary (Perez vs.
Calingo, CA-40 O.G. 53). Thus, Supreme Court ruled in
Kapunan vs. Casilan and Court of Appeals, (109 Phil. 889)
that the donation to an incapacitated donee does not need
the acceptance by the lawful representative if said donation
does not contain any condition. In simple and pure
donation, the formal acceptance is not important for the
donor requires no right to be protected and the donee
neither undertakes to do anything nor assumes any
obligation. The Quitclaim now in question does not impose
any condition.
The above pronouncement of respondent Appellate Court
finds support in the ruling of this Court in Morales
Development Co., Inc. vs. CA, 27 SCRA 484, which states
