How to Proof Donation?

For a donation to be valid, it must comply with the requirements provided under Article 749 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which states that:

“In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.

“The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.

“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.”

If the deed of donation was lost, one can still prove the donation through the provision of Section 5, Rule 130 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court:

“When original document is unavailable. – When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.”

This is in consonance with the decision of the court in the case of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports vs. Rosario, et al. (GR 146586, Jan. 26, 2005), where the Supreme Court through Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., stated that:

“The Notarial Law mandates a notary public to record in his notarial register the necessary information regarding the instrument acknowledged before him. The Notarial Law also mandates the notary public to retain a copy of the instrument acknowledged before him when it is a contract. The notarial register is a record of the notary public’s official acts. Acknowledged instruments recorded in the notarial register are public documents. If the instrument is not recorded in the notarial register and there is no copy in the notarial records, the presumption arises that the document was not notarized and is not a public document.”

The donation of land or immovable must be made in a public document for it to be valid.

SPA And The Law Of Agency in the Philippines

Ever wished you can be at two places in one time? In effect, the law of agency allows you to do that for transactions allowed by the law and upon meeting certain conditions.

There are a host of reasons for one person wanting another to act on his behalf. It may be lack of time, resources or understanding of a certain matter, hence appointing another to act for him or her may be the better option. Other times, constraints imposed by physical inability or distance play a huge role. It is not uncommon in our country for OFWs, for instance, to appoint trusted relatives to oversee an income-generating rental property. Or for a rather busy person to request a friend to secure a government certification from him or her during business hours.

In business scenarios, a corporation, as a juridical entity, appoints its officers or other employees to do certain tasks for the corporation, such as signing a contract, opening and maintaining accounts, or obtaining permits.

All these scenarios are governed by the law on agency where, in effect, a person is represented by another person who is authorized to bind and do legal acts for and in behalf of the former. Under the Civil Code, by the contract of agency a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter. (Art. 1868, Civil Code) The agency may be express or implied. It is generally not required to be in writing; the contract may be oral unless the law requires a specific form.

For instance, when a sale of a piece of land or any interest therein is through an agent, the authority of the latter shall be in writing; otherwise, the sale shall be void. (Art. 1874, Civil Code) Further, Special Powers of Attorney (SPA) are necessary in the following cases:

(1) To make such payments as are not usually considered as acts of administration;

(2) To effect novations which put an end to obligations already in existence at the time the agency was constituted;

(3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to renounce the right to appeal from a judgment, to waive objections to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription already acquired;

(4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;

(5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration;

(6) To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or those made to employees in the business managed by the agent;

(7) To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be urgent and indispensable for the preservation of the things which are under administration;

(8) To lease any real property to another person for more than one year;

(9) To bind the principal to render some service without compensation;

(10) To bind the principal in a contract of partnership;

(11) To obligate the principal as a guarantor or surety;

(12) To create or convey real rights over immovable property;

(13) To accept or repudiate an inheritance;

(14) To ratify or recognize obligations contracted before the agency;

(15) Any other act of strict dominion. (Art. 1878)

A special power to sell excludes the power to mortgage; and a special power to mortgage does not include the power to sell (Art. 1879) and a special power to compromise does not authorize submission to arbitration. (Art. 1880)

Needless to state, the agent must act within the scope of his authority. He may do such acts as may be conducive to the accomplishment of the purpose of the agency limits of the agent’s authority shall not be considered exceeded should it have been performed in a manner more advantageous to the principal than that specified by him.

In the case of Heirs of Sarili vs Lagrosa (G.R. 193517, 15 January 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that a higher degree of prudence is required from one who buys from a person who is not the registered owner, although the land object of the transaction is registered. In such a case, the buyer is expected to examine not only the certificate of title but also the authority and identity of the person with whom he is dealing with.

If there are flaws in the face of the SPA, mere inspection of the document will not do; the buyer must show that his investigation went beyond the document and into the circumstances of its execution. In Heirs of Sarili, the buyers purchased the subject property from a purported agent, however the latter’s SPA shows flaws in its notarial acknowledgment. The agent’s community tax certificate (CTC) number was not indicated thereon. Despite this irregularity, however, buyers failed to show that they conducted an investigation beyond the subject SPA and into the circumstances of its execution as required by prevailing jurisprudence. Hence, Sps. Sarili cannot be considered as innocent purchasers for value. For indeed, the due execution and authenticity of an SPA in a real estate transaction is of great significance in determining the validity of the sale.

source: www.conventuslaw.com

Personal Remittances Register US$2.9 Billion in January 2021

Personal remittances from Overseas Filipinos (OFs) reached US$2.895 billion in January 2021, 1.7 percent lower than the US$2.944 billion recorded in the same period last year. The marginal decline in personal remittances during the month was attributed to the 2.4 percent drop in remittances from land-based workers with work contracts of one year or more to US$2.219 billion from US$2.274 billion recorded in January 2020.

Meanwhile, remittances from sea-based workers and land-based workers with work contracts of less than one year increased by 1 percent to US$609 million in January 2021 from US$603 million in January 2020.

Similarly, OFs’ cash remittances coursed through banks decreased by 1.7 percent to US$2.603 billion in January 2021 from US$2.648 billion in the comparable month a year ago. In particular, cash remittances from land-based workers contracted by 2.4 percent to US$2.044 billion, while that of sea-based workers increased marginally by 1 percent to US$558 million.

By country source, the United States registered the highest share to total remittances at 40.9 percent, followed by Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Malaysia, and Taiwan.1 The combined remittances from these countries accounted for 78.2 percent of total cash remittances during the period.

source: BSP