SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234502. October 10, 2018.]
AGUINALDO PATANGAN, DEMOSTHENES PATANGAN, 1PATROCINIA PATANGAN PULVERA, 2PRISCILLA PATANGAN REYES,3PLACIDO P. REYES, JR., AND VICENTE P. REYES, 4petitioners,vs. HEIRS OF MARGARITO PATANGAN AND SPOUSES CHESTER B. AND ELSIE O. ARADO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 October 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234502 (Aguinaldo Patangan, Demosthenes Patangan,Patrocinia Patangan Pulvera,Priscilla Patangan Reyes,Placido P. Reyes, Jr., and Vicente P. Reyesv.Heirs of Margarito Patangan and Spouses Chester B. and Elsie O. Arado)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 5 and AFFIRM the April 24, 2017 Decision 6 and the August 16, 2017 Resolution 7 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04154-MIN for failure of petitioners Aguinaldo Patangan (Aguinaldo), Demosthenes Patangan, Patrocinia Patangan Pulvera, Priscilla Patangan Reyes, Placido P. Reyes, Jr., and Vicente P. Reyes (petitioners) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the dismissal 8 by the Regional Trial Court of Mambajao, Camiguin, Branch 28 (RTC) of their Complaint 9 for Specific Performance and Injunction with Damages against respondents Heirs of Margarito Patangan (Margarito's heirs) and Spouses Chester B. and Elsie O. Arado (Spouses Arado), docketed as Civil Case No. 689. acEHCD
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners cannot compel Margarito's heirs to execute a deed of conveyance over the portion of the land subject of the Agreement executed by Margarito Patangan (Margarito) in favor of Aguinaldo. 10 The said agreement partakes of a donation which must appear in a public instrument and accepted by the donee in order to be valid; failing in which, the said agreement is void and inexistent. 11 Contrary to petitioners' claim, 12 Article 1357 13 of the Civil Code does not apply since the formalities that the donation of an immovable property be embodied in a public instrument 14 and accepted by the donee in the manner provided by law 15 are absolute and indispensable requirements for the validity of the donation. Consequently, the parties may not exercise the right to compel the execution of the required document or form pursuant to the said article. 16
The CA was likewise correct in upholding the RTC's ruling that Margarito's heirs are not obliged to abide by the terms of the Agreement executed by Margarito in favor of petitioners, and the Compromise Agreement executed by Margarito's heirs before the Office of the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Poblacion, Mahinog, Camiguin. 17 The stipulation not to sell the subject land to any person except to petitioners and their heirs for an unspecified period constitutes an undue restriction on Margarito's right to freely dispose of his property, 18 which is void. Case law states that the prohibition to sell to third parties, which is indefinite and unlimited as to time, virtually amounts to a perpetual restriction on the right of ownership, specifically the owner's right to freely dispose of his properties, and is considered a nullity. 19 Accordingly, there is no reason to rescind the Deed of Absolute Sale 20 executed by Margarito's heirs in favor of Spouses Arado covering the disputed 269 square-meter portion of the subject land.
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018; on official leave.) SDHTEC
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Erroneously referred to as "Demosthenes Patangan" in the petition. See rollo, p. 17.
2. "Patrocinia Patangan-De Pulvera" in some parts of the rollo; see id. at 139.
3. "Priscilla Patangan-De Reyes" in some parts of the rollo; see id.
4. See id. at 46.
5.Id. at 17-44.
6.Id. at 202-210. Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Perpetua T. Atal-Paño, concurring.
7.Id. at 226-227.
8. See Judgment dated September 7, 2015 penned by Acting Presiding Judge Giovanni Alfred H. Navarro; id. at 155-164.
9. Dated July 1, 2004. Id. at 47-52.
10. See id. at 208-209.
11. See id. at 207.
12. See id. at 27.
13. Articles 1357 and 734 of the Civil Code respectively provide:
Article 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and contracts enumerated in the following article, the contracting parties may compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the contract.
Article 734. The donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
14. Article 749 of the Civil Code provides:
Article 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments. (Emphases supplied)
15. Articles 745, 746, and 747 of the Civil Code provide:
Article 745. The donee must accept the donation personally, or through an authorized person with a special power for the purpose, or with a general and sufficient power; otherwise, the donation shall be void.
Article 746. Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and of the donee.
Article 747. Persons who accept donations in representation of others who may not do so by themselves, shall be obliged to make the notification and notation of which Article 749 speaks. (Emphases supplied)
16. Article 1356 of the Civil Code provides:
Article 1356. Contracts shall be obligatory, in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. However, when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order that it may be valid or enforceable, or that a contract be proved in a certain way, that requirement is absolute and indispensable. In such cases, the right of the parties stated in the following article cannot be exercised. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
17. See rollo, pp. 208-209.
18. See id. at 207.
19. See Leal v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 239 Phil. 377, 383 (1987).
20. See rollo, pp. 146-147.