A+ A A-

GESTOPA VS. CA FACTS- Acceptance in Donation

GESTOPA VS. CA FACTS- Acceptance in Donation


Acceptance is a mark that the donation is inter vivos. Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are not required to be accepted by the donee during the donor’s lifetime.


FACTS:

Spouses Danlag own six parcels of land. To four parcels of land, they executed a donation mortis causa in favor of respondent Mercedes Danlag-Pilapil, reserving donor's rights to amend, cancel, or revoke the donation and to sell or encumber such properties. Years later, they executed another donation, this time inter vivos, to six parcels of land in favor of respondents, reserving their rights to the fruits of the land during their lifetime and for prohibiting the donee to sell or dispose the properties donated. Subsequently, the spouses sold 2 parcels to herein petitioners, spouses Gestopa, and eventually revoking the donation. Respondent filed a petition to quiet title, stating that she had already become the owner of the parcels of land. Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners, but CA reversed.


ISSUE:

Whether the (second) donation was inter vivos or mortis causa


RULING:

It was donation inter vivos. The spouses were aware of the difference between the two donations, and that they needed to execute another deed of donation inter vivos, since it has a different application to a donation mortis causa. Also, the court stated four reasons to the matter: (1) that the spouses donated the parcels of land out of love and affection, a clear indication of a donation inter vivos; (2) the reservation of a lifetime usufruct; (3) reservation of sufficient properties for maintenance that shows the intention to part with their six lot; and (4) respondent's acceptance, contained in the deed of donation. Once a deed of donation has been accepted, it cannot be revoked, except for officiousness or ingratitude, which the spouses failed to invoke.


GESTOPA VS. CA FACTS- Acceptance in Donation

GESTOPA VS. CA FACTS- Acceptance in Donation


Acceptance is a mark that the donation is inter vivos. Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are not required to be accepted by the donee during the donor’s lifetime.


FACTS:

Spouses Danlag own six parcels of land. To four parcels of land, they executed a donation mortis causa in favor of respondent Mercedes Danlag-Pilapil, reserving donor's rights to amend, cancel, or revoke the donation and to sell or encumber such properties. Years later, they executed another donation, this time inter vivos, to six parcels of land in favor of respondents, reserving their rights to the fruits of the land during their lifetime and for prohibiting the donee to sell or dispose the properties donated. Subsequently, the spouses sold 2 parcels to herein petitioners, spouses Gestopa, and eventually revoking the donation. Respondent filed a petition to quiet title, stating that she had already become the owner of the parcels of land. Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners, but CA reversed.


ISSUE:

Whether the (second) donation was inter vivos or mortis causa


RULING:

It was donation inter vivos. The spouses were aware of the difference between the two donations, and that they needed to execute another deed of donation inter vivos, since it has a different application to a donation mortis causa. Also, the court stated four reasons to the matter: (1) that the spouses donated the parcels of land out of love and affection, a clear indication of a donation inter vivos; (2) the reservation of a lifetime usufruct; (3) reservation of sufficient properties for maintenance that shows the intention to part with their six lot; and (4) respondent's acceptance, contained in the deed of donation. Once a deed of donation has been accepted, it cannot be revoked, except for officiousness or ingratitude, which the spouses failed to invoke.


BATASnatin The Firm

Lawyers in the Philippines

Latest @ Forums

Popular

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

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 more

Oral 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 more

Article 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 more

Random

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

US V. TAMBUNTING 41…

US V. TAMBUNTING 41 PHIL 364 FACTS: Accused  and  his  wife  were  accused  and  later  found  guilty of  stealing  gas from  the  Manila  Gas  Corporation.    It  was  found  out  that  during  their occupancy  of  the  upper  portion  of  a  house ...

Read more

Change of Interest …

Change of Interest In The Thing InsuredSection 20. Except in the cases specified in the next four sections, and in the cases of life, accident and health insurance, a change of interest in any part of a thing insured, unaccompanied by a correspondin...

Read more

Concession Theory

What is the Concession Theory? Does it have any legal basis in Philippine Law?   It is a principle in the creation of corporations, under which a corporation is an artificial creature without any existence until it has received the imprimatur of th...

Read more

Featured

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Prev Next

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 more

People 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 more

Perfection 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


BATASnatin.com- The Best Philippine Law Library

Login

Sign in with Facebook