G.R. No. 17783 ; June 22, 1922
DI SIOCK JIAN, as guardian of the minors Sy Kiong Chuan and Florencia Sy Lioc Suy, plaintiff-appellant, vs. SY LIOC SUY, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Sy Lioc Suy executed a deed of donation (Exhibit A) on April 23, 1918, in favor of his minor children, represented by their mother and guardian, Di Siock Jian (the plaintiff). The donation was accepted on the same date (Exhibit B). The deed contained a clause obligating the donees, through their mother, to provide the donor with lodging, food, clothing, medical care, and other necessities for life. The property was registered under the Torrens system in the name of Sy Lioc Suy. The donation documents were not registered. Later, on July 5, 1919, Sy Lioc Suy executed a document (Exhibit D) revoking the donation. On July 12, 1919, he sold the same property to his other children (the other defendants) via a deed of sale (Exhibit C), which was registered, resulting in the issuance of a new certificate of title in the purchasers’ names. The plaintiff, as guardian of the donee-minors, filed an action to have the sale declared void for being fraudulent, to have the minors’ title recognized, and for other relief. The defendants sought a declaration that the donation was null and void and that they were the legal owners. The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts to the trial court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the donation was pure or onerous/conditional.
2. Whether the donation was valid and irrevocable.
3. Whether the subsequent sale of the property to the other defendants was fraudulent and void.

RULING

1. The donation was onerous/conditional, not pure. The clause imposing upon the donees the obligation to provide lifelong support to the donor constituted a burden or condition under Article 619 of the Civil Code, making it a conditional or remuneratory donation.
2. The donation was not perfected and was void. For a donation to be valid and perfected, acceptance must be communicated to the donor. The agreed facts did not establish that the acceptance (Exhibit B) was formally notified to the donor, Sy Lioc Suy. Furthermore, the donation documents were not registered. Therefore, the donation did not produce legal effect.
3. The subsequent sale was not fraudulent and was valid. There was no evidence of actual fraud or intent to deceive. The purchasers’ knowledge of the unregistered donation documents did not constitute bad faith, especially since they also knew of the revocation (Exhibit D) and the vendor was the registered owner under the Torrens system. The sale was duly registered, and the purchasers acquired an irrevocable title. The minors, as donees under a void donation, had no vested right in the property that could be prejudiced by the sale.
The judgment of the trial court, declaring the defendants-purchasers as the sole owners and ordering the plaintiff to render an accounting of rents, was affirmed.