Banawa v Mirano CD

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-24750 May 16, 1980

FERNANDEZ, J.

BANAWA vs. MIRANO FACTS: Spouses Doroteo Banawa and Juliana took care of Maria Mirano, Juliana’s niece, since Maria is 9 years old and treated her the same way as they treated the co-appellant Gliceria Abrenica, their legally adopted child. In 1921, the spouses bought a parcel of land and registered the certain parcels of land in the name of Maria, because they wanted something for Maria after their death. But in 1949, Maria died. At the time of her death she left only as her nearest relatives the herein plaintiffsappellees, Primitiva (surviving sister) and Gregoria, Juana and Marciano Mirano (children of the deceased’s brother). The Miranos filed a case in court against the Banawas with regards to the possession of the said Iba and Carsuche properties as legal heirs of Maria. The lower court ruled in favor of the Miranos. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, this petition. The defendant spouses died during the pendency of the case at the CA and were substituted by their legally adopted child Gliceria Abrenica and her husband. ISSUE: 1. WON Maria is the owner of the Iba property 2. WON the spouses are entitled to the Carsuche propery HELD: On Issue No. 1 Yes. The spouses Doroteo and Juliana donated the money to Maria which the latter used in the purchase of the lands in question. The spouses’ intention to make Maria the owner of the said parcels of land was clearly shown by their conduct at the time of the execution of the deeds of sale which influenced the vendors to believe that Maria was indeed the vendee in their agreement. Article 632 of the old CC provides: "Donations of personal property may be made verbally or in writing. Verbal donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the gift. In the absence of this requisite the donation shall produce no effect, unless made in writing and accepted in the same form." The the execution of the deed of sale of the Iba property in favor of Maria was the constructive transfer of possession of the incorporeal rights of the spouses over said property. On Issue No. 2 Yes. The Court of Appeals found that there was a sale embodied in a public document of the Carsuche property in 1935 in favor of Maria. However, in 1940 it was sold to the Banawas. The sale was duly registered. They then immediately entered into the possession of the land as owners. The spouses acquired the Carsuche property by acquisitive prescription (Section 40 of the CC) the Carsuche since the action was filed 17 years later and not within 10 years from the time the cause of action accrued in 1940. Hence, the possession of the Banawas over the Carsuche property ripened into full ownership in 1950 when the possession of the petitioner-spouses which was actual, open, public and continuous, under a claims of title exclusive of any other right and adverse to all other claim commenced. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed as to the Iba property (Lot No. 1) but reversed as to the Carsuche property (Lot No. 2) which was acquired by the spouses Doroteo and Juliana who could validly donate the said property to Casiano Amponin and Gliceria Abrenica The petitioners are ordered to pay the private respondents the total amount of P6,975 as actual damages and the amount of P1,000 as attorney's fees, without pronouncement as to costs.