G.R. No. 158916 - HEIRS OF CORNELIO MIGUEL, VS. HEIRS OF ANGEL MIGUEL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City, is hereby directed to issue a New Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title No. S-14, in lieu of the one destroyed, which is the subject of this proceeding. Such title shall contain a memorandum stating that it is issued in lieu of the destroyed one but shall, in all respects, be deemed to be of the same effect as the destroyed owners duplicate certificate of title for all intents and purposes under the Land Registration Act. A copy of this order shall be furnished the Register of Deeds of Puerto Princesa City. [10] The Decision was not contested or appealed and became final and executory. [11] II. Civil Case No. 1185 Subsequently, however, on December 12, 1977, Cornelio filed a complaint for the annulment of the deed of donation on the alleged ground that one of the properties subject of the donation, Lot 2-J of Psd-146879, was given the technical description of Lot J of Psd-146880. This was attributed either to the notary public who prepared the deed of donation or to his secretary who typed it. [12] The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 1185, was assigned to the then Court of First Instance of Palawan, Branch I. On Angels motion, it was dismissed in an Order dated January 31, 1986 for lack of cause of action. In particular, the trial court found that, while the complaint was supposedly denominated as for the annulment of the donation, the allegations of the complaint were really for reformation of instrument because it essentially sought the correction or amendment of the deed of donation to conform to the alleged true intention of the donors to donate Lot 2-J of Psd-146879 and not Lot J of Psd-146880. However, the complaint failed to allege that the donation was conditional and the deed of donation attached as an annex of the complaint showed that no condition was imposed for the donation. [13] As such, it was a simple donation that is not subject of reformation under Article 1366 of the Civil Code which provides: Art. 1366. There shall be no reformation in the following cases: (1) Simple donations inter vivos wherein no condition is imposed; (2) Wills; (3) When the real agreement is void. (Emphasis supplied.) According to the trial court, even if the action were to be considered as for annulment of the deed of donation, it would still be dismissed for lack of cause of action. There was no allegation that the consent of the donors was vitiated when they made the donation, nor was there an allegation of any ground that could have vitiated the donors consent, such as mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud. [14] Finally, the trial court found that Cornelio alleged in the complaint that his wife, Nieves, died prior to the filing of the complaint. The trial court ruled that Cornelio lacked personality to sue in behalf of Nieves because her right as a co-donor is purely personal to her and her right to reform or revoke the donation is exclusively