GR L 21676; (February, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21676 February 28, 1969
VICENTE ALDABA, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CESAR ALDABA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Belen Aldaba died on February 25, 1955, leaving as presumptive heirs her husband Estanislao Bautista and brother Cesar Aldaba. Among her properties were two lots in Manila. Petitioners Dr. Vicente Aldaba and his daughter Jane Aldaba lived in one of the houses on these lots from 1945 after Belen invited them following the burning of their own house. Dr. Aldaba acted as Belen’s adviser, and Jane, a doctor, served as her personal physician until Belen’s death. On June 24, 1955, the heirs executed an extrajudicial partition allotting the lots to Cesar Aldaba, who later exchanged them with respondent Emmanuel Bautista (Estanislao’s grandson). Titles were transferred to Emmanuel Bautista, who then filed an ejectment case against petitioners. Petitioners filed a complaint seeking to declare the partition null and void regarding the lots, claiming ownership through an alleged onerous donation from Belen in consideration of their services, evidenced by a note (Exhibit 6) dated June 18, 1953, where Belen wrote, “Huag kayong umalis diyan. Talagang iyan ay para sa inyo.” The trial court dismissed the complaint, declaring Emmanuel Bautista the absolute owner but granting petitioners a right to stay until reimbursed P5,000. The Court of Appeals affirmed but increased the reimbursement to P8,000.
ISSUE
Whether the deceased Belen Aldaba made a valid onerous donation of the two lots to petitioners in consideration of their services, thereby vesting ownership in them.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The note (Exhibit 6) was merely an expression of an intention to donate, not a conveyance of title, and did not refer to the lots specifically or to services as consideration. There was no evidence of an express or implied agreement that the lots were given in consideration for services. Petitioners’ claim of an implied understanding was unsupported, and Jane Aldaba did not expect payment for her services, negating an implied contract for compensation. The alleged donation did not meet the requirements for an onerous donation under Article 733 of the Civil Code, as the factual findings of the lower courts, which found no donation was made, were upheld. Thus, petitioners were not the absolute owners of the property.