7/21/2016

CaseDigset:Catalanv.Basa

You are here: Home / 2013 / August / Case Digset: Catalan v. Basa

Case Digset: Catalan v. Basa

Published by paul on August 12, 2013 |
FELICIANO CATALAN, petitioners, vs. JESUS BASA, respondents
G. R. No. 159567. July 31, 2007.
Facts:
On October 20, 1948, Feliciano Catalan was discharged from active military
service. The Board of Medical Officers of the Department of Veteran Affairs
found that he was unfit to render military service due to his mental disorder
(schizophrenia). On September 28, 1949, Feliciano married Corazon Cerezo.
On June 16, 1951, Feliciano allegedly donated to his sister Mercedes one-half of
the real property through the execution of a document, titled, Absolute deed
of Donation. On December 11,
1953, Peoples Bank and Trust Company filed Special Proceedings to declare
Feliciano incompetent. On December 22, 1953, the trial court issued its Order
of Adjudication of Incompetency for Appointing Guardian for the Estate and
Fixing Allowance of Feliciano. Thus, Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI),
which is formerly the Peoples Bank and Trust Company, was appointed to be
his guardian by the trial court. On March 26, 1979, Mercedes sold the property
donated by Feliciano to her in issue in her children Delia and Jesus Basa. On
April 1, 1997, BPI, acting as Felicianos guardian filed a case for Declaration of
Nullity of Documents, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, as well as
damages against herein respondents. BPI alleged that the Deed of Absolute
Donation of Mercedes was void ab initio, as Feliciano never donated the
property to Mercedes. In addition, BPI averred that even if Feliciano had truly
intended to give the property to her, the donation would still be void, as he
was not of sound mind and was therefore incapable of giving valid consent.
On August 14, 1997, Feliciano passed away. Both the lower court and Court of
Appeals dismissed the case because of insufficient evidence presented by the
complainants to overcome the presumption that Feliciano was sane and
competent at the time he executed the deed of donation in favor of Mercedes
Catalan.
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/08/casedigsetcatalanvbasa/

1/3

7/21/2016

CaseDigset:Catalanv.Basa

Issue:
Whether or not Feliciano has the capacity to execute the donation
Whether or not the property donated to Mercedes and later on sold to her
children is legally in possession of the latter
Are laches and prescription should be considered in the case?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower court and the Court
of Appeals and denied the petition. A donation is an act of liberality whereby
a person disposes gratuitously a thing or right in favor of another, who
accepts it. Like any other contract, an agreement of the parties is essential.
Consent in contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be
intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it
should be free; and (3) it should be spontaneous. The parties intention must
be clear and the attendance of a vice of consent, like any contract, renders the
donation voidable. A person suffering from schizophrenia does not
necessarily lose his competence to intelligently dispose his property. By
merely alleging the existing of schizophrenia, petitioners failed to show
substantial proof that at the date of the donation, June 16, 1951, Feliciano
Catalan had lost total control of his mental facilities. Thus, the lower court
correctly held that Feliciano was of sound mind at that time and this
condition continued to exist until proof to the contrary was adduced. Since
the donation was valid. Mercedes has the right to sell the property to
whomever she chose. Not a shred of evidence has been presented to prove the
claim that Mercedes sale of property to her children was tainted with fraud or
falsehood. Thus, the property in question belongs to Delia and Jesus Basa.
The Supreme Court notes the issue of prescription and laches for the first
time on appeal before the court. It is sufficient for the Supreme Court to note
that even if it prospered, the deed of donation was still a voidable, not a void,
contract. As such, it remained binding as it was not annulled in a proper
action in court within four years.
Posted in Case Digest
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/08/casedigsetcatalanvbasa/

2/3

7/21/2016

http://lawtechworld.com/blog/blog/2013/08/casedigsetcatalanvbasa/

CaseDigset:Catalanv.Basa

3/3