
ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ- Donation Mortis Causa
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ- Donation Mortis Causa
All provisions of a deed of donation should be construed together in case of conflicting statements in order to determine whether it is inter vivos or mortis causa.
FACTS:
Sps. Gavino Diaz and Severa Mendoza executed a Deed of Donation in favor of their children, Olimpia, Angel and Andrea Diaz. In the deed of donation, the Sps. Donated 8 lots, with reservations on certain lots, to their children and daughters-in-law and with conditions that they are not allowed to alienate the same to 3rd persons while the couple are still alive and that they shall continue to administer the same until their death. The donees manifested their acceptance in the same deed of donation. When Gavino died, Severa executed a deed of donation in favor of Angel and Andrea, giving the siblings each a ½ portion of Lot 2377-A. When Severa died, Andrea sued Angel to have the lots 2377-A and 2502 partitioned. Teodorico Alejandro, the surviving spouse of Olimpia, moved to intervene claiming 1/3 portion of Lot 2502.
The CFI ruled that the donation was a donation mortis causa because the ownership of the properties donated did not pass to the donees during the donor’s lifetime but was transmitted to the donees only ―upon the death of the donors‖. It, however, sustained the partition of Lot 2502 since it was an extrajudicial partition. Both parties appealed to the SC, Andrea contending that it is a donation inter vivos while Alejandro contending it to be mortis causa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the donation is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa
RULING: Donation inter vivos
The donation is a donation inter vivos because it took effect during the lifetime of the donors as provided in Art. 729. It was stipulated in the deed that out of love and affection by the donors to the donees, the latter are donating wholeheartedly and unconditionally free from any kind of lien and debt. Likewise, it was accepted by the donees which is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis causa are never accepted during the donor’s lifetime.
The reservation clause which provides that the donees cannot sell the lots to 3rd persons while the couple is still alive implies that the ownership already passed.
Although there was a stipulation where the couple reserved to themselves the administration, ownership and rights over the properties mentioned, this should not be construed as to mean that ownership will pass only after their death. This refers to the beneficial ownership and not the naked title and what the donors reserved to themselves by means of that clause was the management of the donated lots and the fruits thereof.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
- BONSATO V. UTEA, 95 Phil 481- Donation Mortis Causa -
- MAGLASANG VS. HEIRS OF CORAZON CABATINGAN, 383 SCRA 6- Donation Mortis Causa -
- DAVID VS. SISON- Donation Mortis Causa: Essential Rights of Ownership -
- SICAD VS. CA- Donation Inter Vivos -
- PUIG vs. PENAFLORIDA- Donation Mortis Causa or Inter Vivos -
ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ- Donation Mortis Causa
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ- Donation Mortis Causa
All provisions of a deed of donation should be construed together in case of conflicting statements in order to determine whether it is inter vivos or mortis causa.
FACTS:
Sps. Gavino Diaz and Severa Mendoza executed a Deed of Donation in favor of their children, Olimpia, Angel and Andrea Diaz. In the deed of donation, the Sps. Donated 8 lots, with reservations on certain lots, to their children and daughters-in-law and with conditions that they are not allowed to alienate the same to 3rd persons while the couple are still alive and that they shall continue to administer the same until their death. The donees manifested their acceptance in the same deed of donation. When Gavino died, Severa executed a deed of donation in favor of Angel and Andrea, giving the siblings each a ½ portion of Lot 2377-A. When Severa died, Andrea sued Angel to have the lots 2377-A and 2502 partitioned. Teodorico Alejandro, the surviving spouse of Olimpia, moved to intervene claiming 1/3 portion of Lot 2502.
The CFI ruled that the donation was a donation mortis causa because the ownership of the properties donated did not pass to the donees during the donor’s lifetime but was transmitted to the donees only ―upon the death of the donors‖. It, however, sustained the partition of Lot 2502 since it was an extrajudicial partition. Both parties appealed to the SC, Andrea contending that it is a donation inter vivos while Alejandro contending it to be mortis causa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the donation is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa
RULING: Donation inter vivos
The donation is a donation inter vivos because it took effect during the lifetime of the donors as provided in Art. 729. It was stipulated in the deed that out of love and affection by the donors to the donees, the latter are donating wholeheartedly and unconditionally free from any kind of lien and debt. Likewise, it was accepted by the donees which is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis causa are never accepted during the donor’s lifetime.
The reservation clause which provides that the donees cannot sell the lots to 3rd persons while the couple is still alive implies that the ownership already passed.
Although there was a stipulation where the couple reserved to themselves the administration, ownership and rights over the properties mentioned, this should not be construed as to mean that ownership will pass only after their death. This refers to the beneficial ownership and not the naked title and what the donors reserved to themselves by means of that clause was the management of the donated lots and the fruits thereof.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
Additional Law Reading:
- BONSATO V. UTEA, 95 Phil 481- Donation Mortis Causa -
- MAGLASANG VS. HEIRS OF CORAZON CABATINGAN, 383 SCRA 6- Donation Mortis Causa -
- DAVID VS. SISON- Donation Mortis Causa: Essential Rights of Ownership -
- SICAD VS. CA- Donation Inter Vivos -
- PUIG vs. PENAFLORIDA- Donation Mortis Causa or Inter Vivos -
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 8 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
PROMISE TO CONSTITU…
PROMISE TO CONSTITUTE PLEDGE OR MORTGAGE CREATES NO REAL RIGHTArt. 2092. A promise to constitute a pledge or mortgage gives rise only to a personal action between the contracting parties, without prejudice to the criminal responsibilit...
Read moreSanchez vs. People-…
Sanchez vs. People G.R. No. 179090, June 5, 2009 FACTS: Appellant was charged with the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse in an Information[6] dated August 29, 2001 which reads: The undersigned, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, hereby accu...
Read moreEmployer's Liabilit…
Employer's Liability Based On Quasi-DelictAn employer’s liability based on a quasi-delict is primary and direct, while the employer’s liability based on a delict is merely subsidiary. (People vs. Fabro, 93 SCRA 200 (1979). The words “primary and dire...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

