The Supreme Court ruled that a donation of land made before the donor obtained title from the government is void. This means that individuals cannot donate property that is still part of the public domain. The decision underscores that ownership rights must be fully vested before any valid transfer, including donations, can occur. The case clarifies the importance of the Regalian doctrine and its impact on property rights in the Philippines.

From Public Domain to Private Hands: Can You Donate What Isn’t Yours?

This case revolves around a dispute over a 5,000 square-meter portion of land in Lanao del Norte. The Heirs of Rafael Gozo filed a case against the Philippine Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventist Church (PUMCO-SDA), claiming that the church’s possession of the land was invalid. The church based its claim on a Deed of Donation executed in 1937 by Spouses Rafael and Concepcion Gozo, the petitioners’ predecessors. However, at the time of the donation, the land was still part of the public domain. The pivotal legal question is: Can a valid donation occur when the donor does not yet have a recognized right of ownership over the property?

Underlying this case is the **Regalian doctrine**, a fundamental principle in Philippine property law. This doctrine, enshrined in Article XII, Section 2 of the Constitution, asserts that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. This means that any claim of private ownership must originate from a grant, either express or implied, from the government. The Supreme Court emphasized this point, stating:

Under the Regalian doctrine, which is embodied in Article XII, Section 2 of our Constitution, all lands of the public domain belong to the State, which is the source of any asserted right to any ownership of land. All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Accordingly, public lands not shown to have been reclassified or released as alienable agricultural land or alienated to a private person by the State remain part of the inalienable public domain.

Building on this principle, the Court noted that the Spouses Gozo only obtained title to the land in 1953, sixteen years *after* the Deed of Donation was executed. This fact is critical because it determines the validity of the donation. The court explained that before the government grants title, the applicant possesses no disposable right over the land. The legal maxim **_nemo dat quod non habet_**, meaning “no one can give what one does not have,” applies directly to this situation.

The Public Land Act, specifically Commonwealth Act No. 141, governs the classification and disposition of public lands. It outlines the steps required to make public lands alienable and disposable. Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the said Act explain how the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, classifies the lands of the public domain:

SEC. 6. The President, upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall from time to time classify the lands of the public domain into:
(a) Alienable or disposable,
(b) Timber, and
(c) Mineral lands,
and may at any time and in a like manner transfer such lands from one class to another, for the purposes of their administration and disposition.



SEC. 7. For the purposes of the administration and disposition of alienable or disposable public lands, the Batasang Pambansa or the President, upon recommendation by the Secretary of Natural Resources, may from time to time declare what public lands are open to disposition or concession under this Act.

The Court further clarified the requirements for acquiring homestead rights, stating that only after full compliance with all conditions and requirements can an applicant claim a right over the land. As such, any attempt to dispose of the land before this compliance is legally infirm.

In *Republic v. Court of Appeals*, the Supreme Court previously addressed a similar issue regarding the donation of land before the donor had proper title. That case reinforced the principle that a donation is void if the donor lacks ownership rights at the time of the donation.

The Supreme Court then turned to the nature of void contracts, emphasizing their lack of legal effect. The principle **_Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum_**, meaning “that which is a nullity produces no effect,” is central to the ruling. Because the Deed of Donation was void from the beginning, it could not transfer any rights to PUMCO-SDA. The Court stated:

As a void contract, the Deed of Donation produces no legal effect whatsoever. *Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum*. That which is a nullity produces no effect. Logically, it could not have transferred title to the subject property from the Spouses Gozo to PUMCO-SDA and there can be no basis for the church’s demand for the issuance of title under its name. Neither does the church have the right to subsequently dispose the property nor invoke acquisitive prescription to justify its occupation. A void contract is not susceptible to ratification, and the action for the declaration of absolute nullity of such contract is imprescriptible.

The subsequent actions of the Spouses Gozo further support the Court’s conclusion. They applied for and were granted a homestead patent over the entire property, including the portion occupied by the church, without any objection from PUMCO-SDA. This application, along with the later extrajudicial partition of the property by the Gozo heirs, reinforces their assertion of ownership and weakens the church’s claim.

Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the Court of Appeals’ ruling that laches barred the petitioners’ claim. **Laches** is an equitable doctrine that prevents a party from asserting a right after an unreasonable delay that prejudices the opposing party. However, the Court found that the Spouses Gozo’s actions in obtaining the homestead patent and the heirs’ subsequent assertion of rights negated any claim of laches. The respondents remained silent all throughout about the supposed donee’s rights.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a donation of land is valid when the donor did not have a title to the property at the time of the donation. The court determined that such a donation is void.
What is the Regalian Doctrine?	The Regalian Doctrine states that all lands of the public domain belong to the State. Private ownership must be traced back to a grant from the government.
What does “nemo dat quod non habet” mean?	“Nemo dat quod non habet” means “no one can give what one does not have.” This legal principle means that a person cannot transfer ownership of something they do not own.
What is a homestead patent?	A homestead patent is a grant from the government to a person who has met certain requirements for occupying and cultivating public land. It confers ownership of the land to the patentee.
What does “Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum” mean?	“Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum” means “that which is a nullity produces no effect.” This means a void contract has no legal consequences.
What is laches?	Laches is an equitable doctrine that prevents a party from asserting a right after an unreasonable delay that has prejudiced the opposing party. It is based on fairness and equity.
When was the Deed of Donation executed in this case?	The Deed of Donation was executed on February 28, 1937. This was before the Spouses Gozo obtained title to the property.
When did the Spouses Gozo obtain title to the land?	The Spouses Gozo obtained title to the land on October 5, 1953, after a homestead patent was granted by the President of the Philippines.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of the Regalian doctrine and the principle that one cannot donate property to which they do not yet have a valid title. This case serves as a reminder of the need to ensure clear and established ownership before engaging in any property transfer. The ruling highlights the importance of proper land titling and registration to avoid future disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Heirs of Gozo v. PUMCO, G.R. No. 195990, August 05, 2015