0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
89 просмотров1 страница
The heirs of Juan Bonsato and Felipe Bonsato claimed that two deeds of donation executed by Domingo Bonsato donating land to Juan and Felipe were valid. However, Josefa Utea et al. argued the donations were invalid as mortis causa donations that lacked proper formalities. The Supreme Court ruled the donations were valid inter vivos donations, as the deeds did not allow revocation and conveyed ownership immediately, distinguishing them from mortis causa donations. However, the donations could not affect the half interest inherited by Josefa Utea et al. from Domingo's predeceased wife.
The heirs of Juan Bonsato and Felipe Bonsato claimed that two deeds of donation executed by Domingo Bonsato donating land to Juan and Felipe were valid. However, Josefa Utea et al. argued the donations were invalid as mortis causa donations that lacked proper formalities. The Supreme Court ruled the donations were valid inter vivos donations, as the deeds did not allow revocation and conveyed ownership immediately, distinguishing them from mortis causa donations. However, the donations could not affect the half interest inherited by Josefa Utea et al. from Domingo's predeceased wife.
The heirs of Juan Bonsato and Felipe Bonsato claimed that two deeds of donation executed by Domingo Bonsato donating land to Juan and Felipe were valid. However, Josefa Utea et al. argued the donations were invalid as mortis causa donations that lacked proper formalities. The Supreme Court ruled the donations were valid inter vivos donations, as the deeds did not allow revocation and conveyed ownership immediately, distinguishing them from mortis causa donations. However, the donations could not affect the half interest inherited by Josefa Utea et al. from Domingo's predeceased wife.
HEIRS OF JUAN BONSATO and FELIPE BONSATO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSEFA UTEA, ET AL., respondents. Facts: Domingo Bonsato purportedly executed two deeds of donation in favor of his brother, Juan Bonsate, and his nephew, Felipe Bonsato. Juan and Felipe claimed that it was voluntarily executed by Domingo in consideration of past services they rendered to him. The respondents filed a complaint for the annulment of the deeds claiming that Domingo was induced and deceived to sign them. They further argued that the donations were mortis causa. Thus, they are void for lack of the requisite formalities. Issue: Whether or not the deeds of donation executed by Domingo Bonsato were valid. Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. The Court enumerated the characteristics of a donation mortis causa: that it conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; that before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will; and that the transfer should be void if the transferor survives the transferee. The court found that none of these characteristics were discernible in the deeds of donation. Most significant here was the absence of stipulation that the donor could revoke the donations; on the contrary, the deeds expressly declare them to be "irrevocable", a quality absolutely incompatible with the idea of conveyances mortis causa where revocability is of the essence of the act. Therefore, since the deeds of donation were inter vivos and that the solemnities required by law was met, they are considered valid. Nonetheless, the donations could not affect the half interest inherited by the respondents Josefa Utea, et al. from the predeceased wife of the donor.