This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-02-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Sumipat v. Banga,[37] this Court declared that title to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee by virtue of a Deed of Donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and the donor duly notified thereof. The acceptance may be made in the very same instrument of donation. If the acceptance does not appear in the same document, it must be made in another. Where the Deed of Donation fails to show the acceptance, or where the formal notice of the acceptance, made in a separate instrument, is either not given to the donor or else not noted in the Deed of Donation and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null and void.[38] | |||||
|
2007-06-29 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Thus, if the trial court finds that the deed of sale is void, then the action for the declaration of the contract's nullity is imprescriptible.[10] Indeed, the Court has held in a number of cases that an action for reconveyance of property based on a void contract does not prescribe.[11] However, if the trial court finds that the deed of sale is merely voidable, then the action would have already prescribed. | |||||
|
2005-03-18 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| However, as with most procedural rules, this maxim is subject to exceptions. Indeed, our rules recognize the broad discretionary power of an appellate court to waive the lack of proper assignment of errors and to consider errors not assigned. Section 8 of Rule 51 of the Rules of Court provides: SEC. 8 Questions that may be decided. No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered, unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors. Thus, an appellate court is clothed with ample authority to review rulings even if they are not assigned as errors in the appeal in these instances: (a) grounds not assigned as errors but affecting jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but are evidently plain or clerical errors within contemplation of law; (c) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but consideration of which is necessary in arriving at a just decision and complete resolution of the case or to serve the interests of justice or to avoid dispensing piecemeal justice; (d) matters not specifically assigned as errors on appeal but raised in the trial court and are matters of record having some bearing on the issue submitted which the parties failed to raise or which the lower court ignored; (e) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but closely related to an error assigned; and (f) matters not assigned as errors on appeal but upon which the determination of a question properly assigned, is dependent.[42] | |||||
|
2005-03-11 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments. In Sumipat, et al v. Banga, et al.,[61] this Court declared that title to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee by virtue of a deed of donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and the donor duly notified thereof. The acceptance may be made in the very same instrument of donation. If the acceptance does not appear in the same document, it must be made in another. Where the deed of donation fails to show the acceptance, or where the formal notice of the acceptance, made in a separate instrument, is either not given to the donor or else not noted in the deed of donation and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null and void. | |||||