PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY.

AMPIL) 15th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

1. ALDABA v CA A letter showing an intention to donate is not sufficient to prove donation; and most certainly not the form required by law in donations. FACTS: Two lots owned by elen Aldaba are being disputed in this case. !etitoners "r. #icente Aldaba and $ane Aldaba% father and daughter% lived with elen Aldaba for &' years and too( care of her until her death. elen had presumptive heirs her surviving husband )stanislao autista% and her brother Cesar Aldaba *represented as the respondents in this case.+ After the death of elen% the respondents as(ed the petitioners to leave the premises and upon their refusal% the former instituted an e,ectment case. The petitioners argue that elen really intended to donate the property to them as evidence by the note written by elen to them which reads% -.uag (ayong umalis diyan. Talagang iyan ay para sa inyo. Alam nila na iyan ay sa inyo./ They also argue that the property was for compensation of their services which amounted to !01%'''. The respondents contend that the letter no way proves a donation. 2SS3): 456 there was a disposition of property by favour of the petitioners7 elen in

desire as to the way the above Amentioned property.../+ to inherit all his properties. 2SS3)S: 456 there was a valid donation from Arsenio Seville to ?elquiades Seville7 83926:: 6;. A close reading of the letter reveals that it is not a donation inters vivos or motis causa but a mere declaration of an intention and a desire. The fact that the property was mortgage by Arsenio with the (nowledge of the ?elquiades shows that ownership has not yet transferred. Also when Arsenio died% payments to the loan for which the property was mortgaged stopped and was not continued by the petitioners. 2t was even foreclosed but was later on redeemed by one of ArsenioBs brothers% Coilo% who is also one of the respondents. !etitioners has a rightful claim over the property based on the fact that they are heirs of Arsenio but not because of the alleged affidavit e=ecuted in favour of ?elquidas. Also it is worth noting that the signed affidavit is a forgery because Arsenio Sevile was illiterate during his lifetime. .e could not write his name and only affi=ed his thumbma( in the 8)? mentioned earlier.

83926:: 6; For the following reasons: *&+ The note was insufficient conveyance% and hence could not be considered as evidence of a donation with onerous caus. The note can be considered% at most% as indicative of the intention to donate. *<+ no notarial document was e=ecuted by elen to the petitioners during those &' years. *1+ !01%''' worth of services made by the petitioners no way proves the alleged donation. 2f at all% the petitioners believed that the gratuitous use of the property was not sufficient to compensate them for their services% they could have presented their claims in the intestate proceedings% which they themselves could have initiated% if none was instituted. The SC emphasi>ed that there was no e=press agreement between the parties and that respondents $ane did not even e=pect to be compensated.

3. HOWARD v. PADILLA "onations must conform with the formalities set by law. FACTS: ?arie .oward is the widow of the donor. The donated propert was con,ugal in nature. The CA ruled that the donation was inter vivos, not mortis causa. As such it is valid and irrevocable. 2t is valid% however% only up to the e=tent of the share of the donor in the property. 2SS3): 2s the donation mortis causa or inter vivos7 .)9": The donation is mortis causa which ta(es effect upon the death of the donor. Therefore% the donation not having conformed with the formalities of the law% the same is void.

2. JUTIC v CA A letter showing an intention to donate is not sufficient to prove donation; and most certainly not the form required by law in donations. *Same as previous case+ FACTS: The properties of Arsenio Seville% who had no wife or children% here are under dispute which includes < parcels of agricultural land. !etitioners herein are heirs of ?elquiades Seville who was one of the siblings of the deceased Arsenio Seville. 8espondents are other heirs claiming rightful ownership over the properties. The petitioners claim that the < parcels of land with improvements thereon was donated to their father in an affidavit e=ecuted by Arsenio Seville to ?elquindes Seville. 2t stated that the latter was the only one to who the former intended *note: this is only a manifest intention or desire similar to the previous case@ the last part of the document says -That 2 ma(e this affidavit to ame( manifest my intention and 1

4. PUIG v. PENAFLORIDA The reservation by the donor of the right to dispose of the property during her lifetime in the deed does not indicate that title had passed to the donee in her lifetime but that the donor merely reserves power to destroy the donation at any time. FACTS: Carmen 3balde #da. de !arcon died in the City of 2loilo% without forced heirs% leaving certain properties in the City and province of 2loilo. She left a will and was survived by nephews and nieces% children of her predeceased brother% Catalino 3balde% and sister% 9uisa 3balde% married to Ariston ?agbanua. esides her will% the deceased had e=ecuted two notarial deeds of donation. ;ne% entitled ";6AC2;6 ?;8T2S CA3SA% was e=ecuted on 6ovember <D% &EDF% in favor of her niece% )stela ?agbanua. The deceased e=ecuted another deed of

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 15th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

donation% also entitled G)SC82T38A ") ";6AC2;6 ?;8T2S CA3SAG in favor of the same donee% )stela ?agbanua !eHaflorida% conveying to her three parcels of land "efendants@appellants )stela ?agbanua !eHaflorida% et al.% insist that the reservation by the donor of the right to dispose of the property during her lifetime in the deed of "ecember <F% &EDE indicates that title had passed to the donee in her lifetime% otherwise% it is argued% the reservation would be superfluous. 2SS3): 2s the donation mortis causa or inter vivos? .)9": The Court in its decision too( to account not only the foregoing circumstance but also the fact that the deceased e=pressly and consistently declared her conveyance to be one of donation mortis causa% and further forbade the registration of the deed until after her death. The power% as reserved in the deed% was a power to destroy the donation at any time% and that it meant that the transfer is not binding on the grantor until her death made it impossible to channel the property elsewhere.

too( AuroraBs her place in the litigation. Sadly% the CA reaffirmed the 8TC decision. 2SS3): w5n the "onation too( the nature of one 2ntervivos .)9": 6o. The donation is mortis causa. The court found circumstances signifying that Aurora never intended the donation to ta(e effect within her lifetime. First% she e=pressed that the donation ta(e effect &' years after her death. Second% she inserted a prohibition on the sale of the property during the &' year period. Third% she continued to possess the property as well as the fruits and authori>ed such en,oyment in the deed of donation. Fourth% she retained the certificate of title and subsequently alienated it in favor of the Sicads. All these are indisputable acts of ownership. The court then concluded that the real nature of a deed is to be ascertained by bot its language and the intention of the parties as demonstrated by the circumstances attendant upon its e=ecution. The deed sub,ect of litigation is one mortis causa because it stipulated -that all rents% proceeds% fruits% of the donated properties shall remain for the e=clusive benefit and disposal of the donor% during her lifetime; and that% without the (nowledge and consent of the donor% the donated properties could not be disposed of in any way% whether by sale% mortgage% barter% or in any other way possible./ A donation which pretends to be one inter vivos but withholds form the donee that right to dispose of the donated property during the donorBs lifetime is in truth one mortis causa. 2n a donation mortis causa - the right of disposition is not transferred to the donee while the donor is still alive./ ecause of AuroraBs actions% nothing was transferred by the deed of donation in question to her grandchildren. They did not get possession of the property donated. They did not acquire the right to the fruits thereof% or any other right of dominion over the property. ?ore importantly% they did not acquire the right to dispose of the property A this would accrue to them only after ten years from AuroraBs death. ?oreover% they never saw what the certificate of title loo(ed li(e. These circumstances ultimately lead to the conclusion that the donation in question was a donation mortis causa% envisioning a transfer of ownership only after the donor (noc(s on .eavenBs door.

5. SICAD V. CA The real nature of a deed is to be ascertained by bot its language and the intention of the parties as demonstrated by the circumstances attendant upon its e=ecution. FACTS: Capi>% "ec &EIE: :ranny Aurora ?ontinola% out of the charitable goodness of her heart% drew up a "eed in favor of her darling grand(ids Catalino% $udy and $esus@ all of them #alderramas. The deed bore the title -Deed of Donation Intervivos. Thereafter% AuroraBs able secretary presented the "eed to the 8egistrar for the purpose of canceling the original title and obtaining a transfer certificate of title in favor of the three donees. A twist of events followed. The duplicate title never reached the donees; Aurora retained the document and maintained possession of the property for ten years after the transfer. The tipping point arrived when Aurora then alienated the land to spouses )rnesto and )velyn Sicad. Simultaneously with alienation% Aurora issued a "eed of 8evocation of "onation. She asserted that the donation too( the nature of mortis causa and was therefore revocable anytime. She further averred that the same failed to follow the formality of wills% and therefore was nullity. AuroraBs grandchildren found their grandmaBs reversal ve=ing. They insisted that the "eed was one intervivos and therefore irrevocable. The 8TC ad,udicated and found for the grandchildren. Aurora too( the case to the CA but% alas% (ic(ed the buc(et during proceedings. The Spouses Sicad who were in possession of the property 2

!. DAVID V SISON 4hen the donor maintains the essential rights of ownership over the property during his lifetime% the donation is mortis causa. FACTS: ?anila% &ED1: The Administrator of deceased ?s. "avid was ordered by the court to pay the lawyer of deceased the amount of !&F%''' for legal services rendered. The lawyer% on the other hand% wanted about !F&%'''. *chachingJJJ+ which was equivalent to 0K of the inventoried estate. Administrator thought that too high and said heBd be happy to pay !1%'''.

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 15th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

oth parties based their claims on the central issue of the donation by ?s. "avid. 2f the donation was mortis causa% then the donation should be inventoried with the estate and therefore the lawyer can get his lofty demand. Should the donation have been intervivos% then the donation wouldnBt be inventoried and therefore the 2n a donation mortis causa% the right of administrator can pay the lower sum contended. The lower court analy>ed a few paragraphs of the deed *in tagalog+ and concluded that the deed partoo( of the nature mortis causa. G6a and naturang Gdonor%G ?argarita "avid y !uato% alang@alang sa mala(i niyang pagtiHgin% pagliHgap at pagmamahal sa mga nabanguit na GdoneesG 6arcisa de la Fuente at !riscila de la Fuente% sa pamamagitan nang (asulatang ito% malayang ibinigay at ipinag(a(aloob sa mga naturang 6arcisa de la Fuente at !riscila de la Fuente% at sa (anilang mga tagapagmana% GalbaceaG at GAdministradoresG% sa habang panahon% ang (anyang mga titulo% interes at participacion sa mag sumusunod na ari@arian na pawang malines sa lahat nang mga pananagutan: *8ec. on Appeal% pp. <'E% <&'.+ "atapwaLt ang lahat nang mga tubo at pa(inabangan nang nagbibigay o GdonorG na si ?argarita "avid y !uato hanggang siya ay hindi binabawian nang buhay nang may(apal; at ang mga pinagbibigyan na si 6arcisa de la Fuente at !riscila de la Fuente ay hindi maaaring maipagbili% maisangal% a maipagpalit o sa ano pa man paraan% (ung walang (aalaman at pahintulot nang naturang ?argarita "avid y !uato. 2SS3): w5n the "eed of "onation is ?ortis Causa .)9": Mes. The deed of donation ma(es it clear that all rents% proceeds% fruits% of the donated properties shall remain for the e=clusive benefit and disposal of the donor% ?argartia "avid% during her lifetime and that% without the (nowledge consent of the donor% the donated properties could not be disposed of in any way% whether by sale% mortgage% barter% or in any other way possible% thus ma(ing the donees ,ust as paper owners of the properties. The court then concluded that the donation in question is a donation mortis causa% because the combined effect of the circumstances surrounding the e=ecution of the deed of donation and of the above@quoted clauses thereof could not have ta(en effect before the death of ?argarita "avid. According to the terms of the deed% the most essential elements of ownership N the right to dispose of the donated properties and the right to en,oy the products% profits% possession N remained with ?argarita "avid during her lifetime% and would accrue to the donees only after ?argarita "avidLs death. 4hile the donation in question is a donation mortis causa% the court declined to rule that the donated properties should be 3

included in the inventory of the estate and should follow the same proceedings as if they were not donated at all. The court then awarded the lawyer !&'%''' instead of the !F&%''' he craved.

disposition is not transferred to the donee while the donor is still alive.

". #AGLASANG V. HEIRS OF CORA$ON CABATINGAN% 3&3 SCRA ! FACTS: ;n February &EE<% Conchita Cabatingan e=ecuted in favor of her brother% 6icolas Cabatingan% a G"eed of Conditional of "onation 2nter #ivos for .ouse and 9ot.G Four *D+ other deeds of donation were subsequently e=ecuted by Conchita Cabatingan on $anuary &EE0% bestowing upon: *a+ petitioner )stela C. ?aglasang% two *<+ parcels of land;*b+ 6icolas Cabatingan% a portion of a parcel of land; and *c+ ?erly S. Cabatingan% a portion of land.These deeds of donation contain similar provisions% to wit: GThat for and in consideration of the love and affection of the DONOR for the DONEE, x x x the DONOR does hereby, by these resents, transfer, convey, by !ay of donation, unto the DONEE the above"described ro erty, to#ether !ith the buildin#s and all im rovements existin# thereon, to become effective u on the death of the DONOR$ %RO&IDED, 'O(E&ER, that in the event that the DONEE should die before the DONOR, the resent donation shall be deemed automatically rescinded and of no further force and effect$ x x x)* +Em hasis Ours, ;n ?ay &EE0% Conchita Cabatingan died. 3pon learning of the e=istence of the foregoing donations% respondents *.eirs of Cora>on Cabatingan+ filed an action for Annulment And5;r "eclaration of 6ullity of "eeds of "onations and Accounting% see(ing the annulment of said four *D+ deeds of donation e=ecuted. .eirs allege% inter alia% that petitioners% fraudulently caused the donations and that the documents are void for failing to comply with the provisions of the Civil Code regarding formalities of wills and testaments% considering that these are donations mortis causa. 8TC ruled that the donation was mortis causa thus void for not following the requisite forms. 2SS3): 456 the donation was mortis causa7 .)9": ?ortis Causa. 2n a donation mortis causa% Gthe right of disposition is not transferred to the donee while the donor is still alive.G 2n determining whether a donation is one of mortis causa% the following characteristics must be ta(en into account: *&+ 2t conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or what amounts to the same thing% that the transferor should retain the ownership *full or na(ed+ and control of the property while alive; *<+ That before his death% the transfer should be revocable by

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 15th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

the transferor at will% ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed; And *1+ That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee. 2n the present case% the nature of the donations as mortis causa is confirmed by the fact that the donations do not contain any clear provision that intends to pass proprietary rights to petitioners prior to CabatinganLs death. The phrase Gto become effective upon the death of the ";6;8G admits of no other interpretation but that Cabatingan did not intend to transfer the ownership of the properties to petitioners during her lifetime. For a donation mortis causa to be valid it must conform with the following requisites: -RT. ./0. Every !ill, other than a holo#ra hic !ill, must be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the testator1s name !ritten by some other erson in his resence, and by his ex ress direction, and attested and subscribed by three or more credible !itnesses in the resence of the testator and of one another.

several parcels of land made by "omingo onsato in favor of $uan and Felipe onsato. The donations were embodied in two 6otarial deeds which the $osefa 3tea and the heirs allege were obtained thru fraudulent inducement. 2n the 6otarial deeds% the donor reserved for himself a portion of the fruits of the properties and e=pressed -that after the death of the donor% the aforesaid donation shall become effective./ CF2 ruled that the donation was inter vivos therefor valid. CA ruled it was mortis causa therefor invalid for not following the required formalities. 2SS3): 456 the donation was inter vivos7 .)9": 2nter #ivos. 2f the donation conveys the ownership and only reserves for himself during his lifetime the ownerBs share of the fruits or proceeds% and the deed e=pressly declares the act to be -irrevocable%/ it is not a donation mortis causa% but a conveyance inter vivos. The solemnities required for a donation inter vivos are those prescribed by Art. IDE of the Civil Code. ut only half of the property conveyed shall be valid since the property is con,ugal and only "omingo made the conveyance without any consent

4hether it is a donation mortis causa or inter vivos can be inferred upon the e=ecution of the deed as to what the donor intended it to be. The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and the instrumental witnesses of the will% shall also sign% as aforesaid% each and every page thereof% e=cept the last% on the left margin% and all the pages shall be numbered correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page. The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon which the will is written % and the fact that the testator signed the will and every page thereof% or caused some other person to write his name% under his e=press direction% in the presence of the instrumental witnesses% and that the latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another. 2f the attestation clause is in a language not (nown to the witnesses% it shall be interpreted to them. -RT. ./2. Every !ill must be ac3no!led#ed before a notary ublic by the testator and the !itnesses. The notary ublic shall not be re4uired to retain a co y of the 2f the donation conveys the ownership and only reserves for himself during his lifetime the ownerBs share of the fruits or proceeds% and the deed e=pressly declares the act to be -irrevocable%/ it is not a donation mortis causa% but a conveyance inter vivos. !ill, or file another !ith the office of the 5ler3 of 5ourt. +n, from Andrea. 6ote: ?any portions of the case are in Spanish.

(. ALEJANDRO V. GERALDE$ FACTS: Sps. :avino "ia> and Severa ?endo>a e=ecuted a "eed of "onation in favor of their children% ;limpia% Angel and Andrea "ia>. 2n the deed of donation% the Sps. "onated F 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 1rd 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. 4hen :avino died% Severa e=ecuted a deed of donation in favor of Angel and Andrea% giving the siblings each a O portion of 9ot <1II@A. 4hen Severa died% Andrea sued Angel to have the lots <1II@A and <0'< partitioned. Teodorico Ale,andro% the surviving spouse of ;limpia% moved to intervene claiming &51 portion of 9ot <0'<. The CF2 ruled that the donation was a donation mortis causa because the ownership of the properties donated did not pass to the donees during the donorBs lifetime but was transmitted to the donees only -upon the death of the donors/. 2t% however% sustained the partition of 9ot <0'< since it was an e=tra,udicial partition. oth parties appealed to the SC% Andrea contending that it is a donation inter vivos while Ale,andro contending it to be mortis causa. 2SS3): 456 the donation is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa 4

&. BONSATO V. CA'UTEA% (5 P )* 4&1 FACTS: $osefa 3tea and other heirs of deceased "omingo onsato and Andrea 6acario filed a complaint to annul the donations of

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 15th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

83926:: "onation inter vivos The donation is a donation inter vivos because it too( effect during the lifetime of the donors as provided in Art. I<E. 2t 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 (ind of lien and debt. 9i(ewise% it was accepted by the donees which is a requirement for donations inter vivos. "onations mortis causa are never accepted during the donorBs lifetime. The reservation clause which provides that the donees cannot sell the lots to 1 rd 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 na(ed title and what the donors reserved to themselves by means of that clause was the management of the donated lots and the fruits thereof.

2SS3)S *&+ 456 the probate has ,urisdiction to e=clude properties donated to 3rsula *<+ 456 the donation e=ecuted in favor of 3rsula was a donation inter vivos 83926: *&+ M)S 2t was stressed in the order of the probate court that it was without pre,udice to the final determination in a separate action. 2t is well@settled that although a probate court cannot ad,udicate or determine title to properties% it can determine whether or not the properties should be included in the inventory to be administered. Such determination is not conclusive and is sub,ect to the final decision in a separate action. *<+ M)S Although the donation was entitled -donations mortis causa/ it has been held that dispositions in a deed of donation do not depend on the title or term used in the deed of donation. 2t is the body of the document which should be considered in ascertaining the intention of the donor. For a donation to be a donation mortis causa% the following characteristics should be present: &. 2t conveys no title before the death of the transferor or the transferor retains ownership over the property <. efore his death% the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will 1. The transfer is void should the transferor survive the transferee The following are not present in the case. The transfer of ownership was immediate and independent of the death of the donor. The provision stating that the donor has reserved

1+. RE,ES V. #OS-UEDA The nature of the disposition made is the determinative factor which ma(es the donation - inter vivos/ or - mortis causa/ and not the title given to a deed of donation. FACTS "r. )milio !ascual died intestate and was survived by his sister 3rsula !ascual and the children of his late sisters% herein petitioners 8uperto 8eyes et. al. The heirs of "r. !ascual filed Special !roceedings 6o. I1@1'@? in the CF2 for the administration of !ascualBs estate. 3rsula then filed a motion to e=clude some properties included alleging that these were

A sale can still be valid *even if seller was not the owner at the time of the sale+ if ownership of the sub,ect matter reverts bac( to the donor of a donation that is sub,ect to a resolutory condition not being fulfilled.

donated to her in a donation mortis causa in &EPP. This was granted by the CF2 without pre,udice to its final determination in a separate action. An appeal was made to the SC. The SC then issued a T8; en,oining the CF2 from enforcing the order. Among the properties donated to 3rsula is lot <D which was also donated in &EPE in a deed of donation inter vivos in favor of ;felia !arungao who was then a minor at the time of the donation. 4hen she reached the age of ma,ority% she had the donation registered but found out that the certificate of title was missing so she filed a petition for reconstitution of title which was granted and she registered the donation and was issued a new TCT in her name. 3rsula then sold the lot in favor of the 8eyes. en,amin 8eyes filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of ;feliaBs TCT which prompted ;felia to file a petition for recovery of possession against en,amin 8eyes. The CF2 issued a ,oint decision for the < cases ruling that ;feliaBs TCT was null and void. The 2AC affirmed thus an appeal to the SC. 5

sufficient properties for himself to maintain him for life confirms the intention of the donor to give na(ed ownership immediately after e=ecution of the deed of donation.

11. GESTOPA V CA FACTS Spouses "anlag own si= parcels of land. To four parcels of land% they e=ecuted a donation mortis causa in favor of respondent ?ercedes "anlag@!ilapil% reserving donorLs rights to amend% cancel% or revo(e the donation and to sell or encumber such properties. Mears later% they e=ecuted another donation% this time inter vivos% to si= 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 < parcels to herein petitioners% spouses :estopa% and eventually revo(ing the donation. 8espondent 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%

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 15th week but CA reversed.

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

2SS3): 4hether the *second+ donation was inter vivos or mortis causa 83926: 2t was donation inter vivos. The spouses were aware of the difference between the two donations% and that they needed to e=ecute 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: *&+ that the spouses donated the parcels of land out of love and affection% a clear indication of a donation inter vivos; *<+ the reservation of a lifetime usufruct; *1+ reservation of sufficient properties for

their rights to recover the possession and ownership over the property since they immediately filed the action when the municipality passed the resolution% reverting the ownership of land to the donors. .owever% a sale being a consensual contract% it can be perfected upon meeting of the minds% and completing the three essential elements of a valid contract of sale. )ven when Trinidad was not the owner when the sale was perfected% tradition through delivery is only important upon the consummation stage. Such transfer of ownership through actual or constructive delivery only happened when the lands reverted bac( to petitioners. Art &D1D is applicable% stating that sellerLs Gtitle passes by operation if law to the buyer%G and therefore ma(ing the sale valid. The donated lots cannot be considered outside the commerce of man% since nowhere in

The donation% following the theory of co#nition *Article &1&E% Civil Code+% is perfected only upon the moment the donor (nows of the acceptance by the donee.G

maintenance that shows the intention to part with their si= lot; and *D+ respondentLs acceptance% contained in the deed of

the law states that properties owned by municipality would be as such.

An inter vivos donation of real property as distinguished from a donation mortis causa is one e=ecuted in a public document and accepted by the donees in the same instrument or a separate one and ta(es effect during the lifetime of the donors.

donation. ;nce a deed of donation has been accepted% it cannot be revo(ed% e=cept for officiousness or ingratitude% which the spouses failed to invo(e.

13. LAGA$O V. CA I CABANLIT FACTS: !etitioner filed an action see(ing to recover from defendant a parcel of land which the former claims to have acquired from his grandmother by donation. 8espondent on the other hand% put up the defense that when the alleged donation was e=ecuted% he had already acquired the property by a "eed of Assignment *allegedly e=ecuted before the "eed of "onation to !laintiff+ from a transferee *the former agent+ of petitionerBs grandmother. "efendant also claims that petitioner failed to accept the donation whether in the same deed of donation or in a separate instrument rendering the donation null and void. !etitioner defends that the donation in any case was onerous as he wsd the one who paid the landBs amorti>ation. 2SS3): 456 the donation is simple or onerous. 83926:: A simple or pure donation is one whose cause is pure liberality *no strings attached+% while an onerous donation is one which is sub,ect to burdens% charges or future services equal to or more in value than the thing donated. Article I11 of the Civil Code% donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on contracts; hence% the formalities required for a valid simple donation are not applicable. 4e rule that the donation was simple% not onerous. )ven conceding that petitionerLs full payment of the purchase price of the lot might have been a burden to him% such payment was not however imposed by the donor as a condition for the donation. 8ather% the deed e=plicitly stated: 6

12. -UIJADA V CA FACTS !etitioners are the children of the late Trinidad Qui,ada. Trinidad and her siblings e=ecuted a deed of donation of a two@hectare lot in favor of the ?unicipality of Talacogon *Agusan del Sur+% e=clusively for the purpose of constructing the proposed provincial high school. .owever% possession remained with Trinidad. She subsequently sold the two hectares on two separate occasions to 8egalado ?onde,ar% who sold it to different persons. )ventually% the ?unicipality% failing to construct the high school% reverted ownership to the donors. !etitioners filed an action for quieting of title and recovery of possession and ownership. 8TC ruled in favor of petitioners% but CA reversed. 2SS3): 4hether the deed of donation had a suspensive condition or a resolutory condition R4hether the sale was valid 83926:: 4hen the donation was accepted% the ownership was transferred to the school% only sub,ect to a condition that a school must be constructed over the lot. Since ownership was transferred% and failure to fulfill the condition reverts the ownership bac( to the donor% it is a resolutory condition. +Not really a discussion in %ro erty, 4hen Trinidad sold the parcels of land to ?onde,ar% she was not the owner of the land. !etitioners also did not sleep on

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 15th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

For his part% the !etitioner testified that he was the husband That...the ";6;8 hereby voluntarily and freely gives% by way of 2sidra ?elad% "omingoLs niece% whom he and his wife $uana of Three essential elements of a donation: &. 8eduction in the patrimony of the donor <. 2ncrease in the patrimony of the donee 1. 2ntent to do an act of liberality or aniumus donandi 2t is also required that the donation be made in a public document and that its acceptance be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document% which has to be recorded as well.

donation unto said ";6))...the above described real property% together with all the buildings and improvements found therein% free from all lines 6sic7 and encumbrances and char#es !hatsoever; The payments even seem to have been made pursuant to the power of attorney e=ecuted by Catalina 8eyes in favor of petitioner% her grandson% authori>ing him to e=ecute acts necessary for the fulfillment of her obligations. As a pure or simple donation% the following provisions of the Civil Code are applicable: -rt. 8*9. The donation is erfected from the moment the donor 3no!s of the acce tance by the donee. -rt. 892. -cce tance must be made durin# the lifetime of the donor and the donee. -rt. 89:. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a ublic instrument, s ecifyin# therein the ro erty donated and the value of the char#es !hich the donee must satisfy. The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation and in a separate public document% but it shall not ta(e effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor. 2f the acceptance is made in a separate instrument% the donor shall be notified thereof in authentic form% and this step shall be noted in both instruments. The donation% following the theory of co#nition *Article &1&E% Civil Code+% is perfected only upon the moment the donor (nows of the acceptance by the donee.G

?alupang had ta(en into their home as their ward as they had no children of their own. .e and his wife lived with the couple in their house on the residential lot and helped "omingo with the cultivation of the farm. "omingo ?elad signed in a private instrument in which he gave the defendant the farm and in another private instrument in which he also gave him the residential lot% on the understanding that the latter would ta(e care of the grantor and would bury him upon his death. ;I, DO<IN=O <E>-D do hereby declare in this recei t the truth of my #ivin# to ?elix Dan#uilan, my a#ricultural land...that I hereby declare and bind myself that there is no one to !hom I !ill deliver this land exce t to him as he !ill be the one res onsible for me in the event that I !ill die and also for all other thin#s needed and necessary for me... ;I, DO<IN=O <E>-D, declare the truth that I have delivered my residential lot to ?elix Dan#uilan because he !ill be the one to ta3e care of @'E>TERIN= me or bury me !hen I die... 8espondent attac(ed the alleged donations on the ground that that they were donations of real property and as such should have been effected through a public instrument. 2SS3): 456 the donation was valid 83926:: 2t is our view% considering the language of the two instruments% that "omingo ?elad did intend to donate the properties to the petitioner% as the private respondent contends. 4e do not thin(% however% that the donee was moved by pure liberality. 4hile truly donations% the conveyances were onerous donations as the properties were given to the petitioner in e=change for his obligation to ta(e care of the donee for the rest of his life and provide for his burial. .ence% it was not covered by the rule in Article IDE of the Civil Code requiring donations of real properties to be effected through a public instrument. The case at bar comes squarely under the doctrine laid down in <analo v. De <esa% where the Court held: There can be no doubt that the donation in 4uestion !as made for a valuable consideration, since the donors made it conditional u on the donees1 bearin# the ex enses that mi#ht be occasioned by the death and burial of the donor

14. DANGUILAN V. IAC I #ELAD FACTS: 8espondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for recovery of a farm lot and a residential lot which she claimed she had purchased from "omingo ?elad% the original owner% and were now being unlawfully withheld by the defendant. 2n his answer% the petitioner denied the allegation and averred that he was the owner of the said lots of which he had been in open% continuous and adverse possession% having acquired them from "omingo ?elad in &ED& and &ED1 by donation.

2n order to determine whether or not an onerous donation is valid and effective it should be sufficient to demonstrate that% as a contract% it embraces the conditions the law requires% although not recorded in a public instrument. 7

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 15th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

%lacida <analo, a condition and obli#ation. Therefore, in order to determine !hether or not said donation is valid and effective it should be sufficient to demonstrate that, as a contract, it embraces the conditions the la! re4uires and is valid and effective, althou#h not recorded in a ublic instrument. The private respondent argues that as there was no equivalence between the value of the lands donated and the services for which they were being e=changed% the two transactions should be considered pure or gratuitous donations of real rights% hence% they should have been effected through a public instrument and not mere private writings. .owever% no evidence has been adduced to support her contention that the values e=changed were disproportionate or unequal. As to the claim of 8espondent that there was a deed of sale% assuming that the sale was valid% there was no trasnfer of ownership because the land was never delivered to 8espondent. 2t is true that the same article declares that the e=ecution of a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing which is the ob,ect of the contract% but% in order that this symbolic delivery may produce the effect of tradition% it is necessary that the vendor shall have had such control over the thing sold that% at the moment of the sale% its material delivery could have been made. 2t is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the o!nershi and the ri#ht of possession. There is no dispute that it is the petitioner and not the private respondent who is in actual possession of the litigated properties.

e=ecuted by .elen were really donations inter vivos. 8epublic filed with 8TC a !etition for )scheat praying that O of "avidBs interest be forfeited in its favor. 8TC dismissed. CA affirmed. 2SS3): 456 there was a donation inter vivos .)9": 6;. 6ot all the elements of a donation are present. The transfer of the properties by virtue of a "eed of Quitclaim resulted in the *&+ reduction of her patrimony as donor and the *<+ consequent increase in the patrimony of "avid as donee. .owever% .elenBs *1+ intention to perform an act of liberality in favor of "avid was not sufficiently established. The < Quitclaims reveal that .elen intended to convey to her son certain parcels of land and to re@affirm it% she e=ecuted a waiver and renunciation of her rights over these properties. 2t is clear that .elen merely contemplated a waiver of her rights% title% interest over the lands in favor of "avid% not a donation. She was also aware that donation was not possible. ?oreover% the essential element of acceptance in the proper form and registration to ma(e the donation valid is lac(ing. The S!A e=ecuted by "avid in favor of Atty. Abela was not his acceptance% but an ac(nowledgment that "avid owns the property referred to and that he authori>es Atty. Abela to sell the same in his name. Further% there was nothing in the S!A to show that he indeed accept the donation. .owever% the ine=istence of a donation does not ma(e the repudiation of .elen in favor "avid valid. There is 6; valid repudiation of inheritance as .elen had already accepted her share of the inheritance when she% together with "avid% e=ecuted a "eed of )=tra,udicial Settlement of the )state% dividing and ad,udicating between them all the properties. y virtue of that settlement% the properties were registered in their names and for && years% they possessed the land in the concept of owner. Thus% the < Quitclaims have no legal force and effect. .elen still owns O of the property.

15. REPUBLIC v. GU$#AN

An ordinary donee of a land who causes the donation to be recorded in the ?ortgage 9aw 8egister in bad faith or with notice of the rights of an adverse claimant requires no additional rights against such claimant through the inscription in the registry.

FACTS: "avid 8ey :u>man% a natural@born American citi>en% is the son of the spouses Simeon :u>man *naturali>ed American+ and .elen ?eyers :u>man *American citi>en+. 2n &EPF% Simeon died leaving to his heirs% .elen and "avid% an estate consisting of several parcels of land in ulacan. 2n &EI'% .elen and "avid e=ecuted a "eed of )=tra,udicial Settlement of the )state% dividing and ad,udicating to themselves all of the property% and registered it to the 8" a year after. 2n &EF&% .elen e=ecuted a "eed of Quitclaim% assigning% transferring and conveying her O share of the properties to "avid. ut since it was not registered% she e=ecuted another "eed of Quitclaim to confirm the first. 2n &EED% Atty. atongbacal wrote the ;S: andfurnished it with documents showing that "avidBs ownership of O of the estate was defective. .e argued that Art. S22 of the Constitution only allows Filipinos to acquire private lands in the country. The only instances when a foreigner may acquire private property are by hereditary succession and if he was formerly a natural@born citi>en who lost his Filipino citi>enship. ?oreover% it contends that the "eeds of Quitclaim 8

1!. CAGAOAN V. CAGAOAN

FACTS: )ugenio and Feli= Cagaoan are sons of :regorio Cagaoan. 2n &E&0% :regorio e=ecuted a deed of gift of D parcels of land in !angasinan in favor of Feli= *without delivery of actual possession+ and in &E&F in favor of )ugenio *who immediately too( possession+ over a parcel of land% which is the same as parcel no. D in the deed of gift in favor of Feli=.

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY. AMPIL) 15th week

Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos leza !ima"ala

e#$ral % &D &'1&%

2mmediately% )ugenio too( possession of the land donated% but failed to have the donation recorded with the 8". .owever% Feli=Bs deed was registered in &E&E and too( possession of !arcel 6os. &% < and 1 since &E&0. .e has never had possession of !arcel 6o. D. After )ugenio had ta(en possession% Feli= had caused his title to be recorded in the ?ortgage 9aw 8egister% having full notice of the donation made to )ugenio. )ugenio instituted an action to declare him the owner of the parcel of land donated to him and to set aside the donation in favor of Feli= on the ground of fraud. 8TC ruled in favor of Feli= ordered )ugenio to surrender possession of the land to him. 2SS3): 4ho owns the parcel of land in dispute7 .)9": )3:)62;. 2t clearly appears the Feli= had full notice of the )ugenioBs claim to the land before he had his deed of gift recorded with the 8". Thus% he may not be considered a third person within the meaning of Art. 1D of the ?ortgage 9aw% and his position was in no wise improved by the inscription of his document. )ugenio% having first ta(en possession in good faith% must therefore be considered to have a better right to the land in question.