0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
68 просмотров2 страницы
The document in question was a donation made by spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales to their children Asuncion and Emiliano and granddaughter Karabini. Though labeled a "donation mortis causa", the Supreme Court found it to be an irrevocable donation inter vivos because it conveyed ownership immediately and was not revocable. As such, Leopoldo's subsequent assignment of his rights to Asuncion was void since he had already donated his full rights. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision upholding the donation inter vivos and nullifying the assignment.
Исходное описание:
G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010 Del Rosario vs Ferrer
Оригинальное название
1 G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010 Del Rosario vs Ferrer
The document in question was a donation made by spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales to their children Asuncion and Emiliano and granddaughter Karabini. Though labeled a "donation mortis causa", the Supreme Court found it to be an irrevocable donation inter vivos because it conveyed ownership immediately and was not revocable. As such, Leopoldo's subsequent assignment of his rights to Asuncion was void since he had already donated his full rights. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision upholding the donation inter vivos and nullifying the assignment.
The document in question was a donation made by spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales to their children Asuncion and Emiliano and granddaughter Karabini. Though labeled a "donation mortis causa", the Supreme Court found it to be an irrevocable donation inter vivos because it conveyed ownership immediately and was not revocable. As such, Leopoldo's subsequent assignment of his rights to Asuncion was void since he had already donated his full rights. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision upholding the donation inter vivos and nullifying the assignment.
G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010 Del Rosario vs Ferrer
JARABN G. D!" R#SAR#, Petitioner, vs. AS$N%#N G. F!RR!R, s&bstit&te' b( )er )eirs, *%!N+!, ,"AR, ANG!"+#, F!"-B!R+#, JR., all s&r.ame' G. F!RR!R, a.' /G$!"A F!RR!R A"+!0A, Respondents. This case pertains to a gift, otherwise denominated as a donation mortis causa, which in reality is a donation inter vivos made effective upon its execution by the donors and acceptance thereof by the donees, and immediately transmitting ownership of the donated property to the latter, thus precluding a subsequent assignment thereof by one of the donors. +)e Fa1ts a.' t)e %ase On August !, "#$% the spouses &eopoldo and 'uadalupe 'on(ales executed a document entitled )*onation Mortis Causa) " in favor of their two children, Asuncion and +miliano, and their granddaughter, ,arabini -daughter of their predeceased son, .oilo/ covering the spouses0 "$1square meter lot and the house on it in Pandacan, 2anila
in equal shares. The deed of donation reads3
4t is our will that this *onation 2ortis 5ausa shall be irrevocable and shall be respected by the surviving spouse. 4t is our will that ,arabini 'on(ales1del Rosario and +miliano 'on(ales will continue to occupy the portions now occupied by them. 4t is further our will that this *O6AT4O6 2ORT47 5A87A shall not in any way affect any other distribution of other properties belonging to any of us donors whether testate or intestate and where ever situated. 4t is our further will that any one surviving spouse reserves the right, ownership, possession and administration of this property herein donated and accepted and this *isposition and *onation shall be operative and effective upon the death of the *O6OR7. 9
Although denominated as a donation mortis causa, which in law is the equivalent of a will, the deed had no attestation clause and was witnessed by only two persons. The named donees, however, signified their acceptance of the donation on the face of the document. 'uadalupe, the donor wife, died in 7eptember "#$%. A few months later or on *ecember "#, "#$%, &eopoldo, the donor husband, executed a deed of assignment of his rights and interests in sub:ect property to their daughter Asuncion. &eopoldo died in ,une "#!. 4n "##% ,arabini filed a )petition for the probate of the August !, "#$% deed of donation mortis causa) before the Regional Trial 5ourt -RT5/ of 2anila in 7p. Proc. #%1#;<%#. = Asuncion opposed the petition, invo>ing his father &eopoldo0s assignment of his rights and interests in the property to her. After trial, the RT5 rendered a decision dated ,une ;, ;;9, < finding that the donation was in fact one made inter vivos, the donors0 intention being to transfer title over the property to the donees during the donors0 lifetime, given its irrevocability. 5onsequently, said the RT5, &eopoldo0s subsequent assignment of his rights and interest in the property was void since he had nothing to assign. The RT5 thus directed the registration of the property in the name of the donees in equal shares. $ On Asuncion0s appeal to the 5ourt of Appeals -5A/, the latter rendered a decision on *ecember 9, ;;%, ! reversing that of the RT5. The 5A held that ,arabini cannot, through her petition for the probate of the deed of donation mortis causa, collaterally attac> &eopoldo0s deed of assignment in Asuncion0s favor. The 5A further held that, since no proceeding exists for the allowance of what ,arabini claimed was actually a donation inter vivos, the RT5 erred in deciding the case the way it did. ?inally, the 5A held that the donation, being one given mortis causa, did not comply with the requirements of a notarial will, % rendering the same void. ?ollowing the 5A0s denial of ,arabini0s motion for reconsideration, # she filed the present petition with this 5ourt. ss&e ,rese.te' The >ey issue in this case is whether or not the spouses &eopoldo and 'uadalupe0s donation to Asuncion, +miliano, and ,arabini was a donation mortis causa, as it was denominated, or in fact a donation inter vivos. 2 The 5ourt0s Ruling That the document in question in this case was captioned )*onation 2ortis 5ausa) is not controlling. This 5ourt has held that, if a donation by its terms is inter vivos, this character is not altered by the fact that the donor styles it mortis causa. "; 4n Austria-Magat v. Court of Appeals, "" the 5ourt held that )irrevocability) is a quality absolutely incompatible with the idea of conveyances mortis causa, where )revocability) is precisely the essence of the act. A donation mortis causa has the following characteristics3 ". 4t 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 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 9. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee. " -8nderscoring supplied/ The 5ourt thus said in Austria12agat that the express )irrevocability) of the donation is the )distinctive standard that identifies the document as a donation inter vivos.) Aere, the donors plainly said that it is )our will that this *onation 2ortis 5ausa shall be irrevocable and shall be respected by the surviving spouse.) The intent to ma>e the donation irrevocable becomes even clearer by the proviso that a surviving donor shall respect the irrevocability of the donation. 5onsequently, the donation was in reality a donation inter vivos. The donors in this case of course reserved the )right, ownership, possession, and administration of the property) and made the donation operative upon their death. But this 5ourt has consistently held that such reservation -reddendum/ in the context of an irrevocable donation simply means that the donors parted with their na>ed title, maintaining only be.e2i1ial ownership of the donated property while they lived. "9
6otably, the three donees signed their acceptance of the donation, which acceptance the deed required. "= This 5ourt has held that an acceptance clause indicates that the donation is inter vivos, since acceptance is a requirement only for such >ind of donations.1awphi1 *onations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, need not be accepted by the donee during the donor0s lifetime. "< ?inally, as ,ustice ,. B. &. Reyes said in Puig v. Peaflorida, "$ in case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed a donation inter vivos rather than mortis causa, in order to avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the property sub:ect of the deed. 7ince the donation in this case was one made inter vivos, it was immediately operative and final. The reason is that such >ind of donation is deemed perfected from the moment the donor learned of the donee0s acceptance of the donation. The acceptance ma>es the donee the absolute owner of the property donated. "!
'iven that the donation in this case was irrevocable or one given inter vivos, &eopoldo0s subsequent assignment of his rights and interests in the property to Asuncion should be regarded as void for, by then, he had no more rights to assign. Ae could not give what he no longer had. Nemo dat quod non habet. "% The trial court cannot be faulted for passing upon, in a petition for probate of what was initially supposed to be a donation mortis causa, the validity of the document as a donation inter vivos and the nullity of one of the donor0s subsequent assignment of his rights and interests in the property. The 5ourt has held before that the rule on probate is not inflexible and absolute. "# 2oreover, in opposing the petition for probate and in putting the validity of the deed of assignment squarely in issue, Asuncion or those who substituted her may not now claim that the trial court improperly allowed a collateral attac> on such assignment. 34!R!F#R!, the 5ourt GRAN+S the petition, 7+T7 A74*+ the assailed *ecember 9, ;;% *ecision and 2arch $, ;;# Resolution of the 5ourt of Appeals in 5A1'.R. 5C %;<=#, and R+467TAT+7 in toto the ,une ;, ;;9 *ecision of the Regional Trial 5ourt of 2anila, Branch "#, in 7p. Proc. #%1 #;<%#.
Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the Opinions of the Judges Thereof, in the Case of Dred Scott versus John F.A. Sandford
December Term, 1856.
The Small-Business Guide to Government Contracts: How to Comply with the Key Rules and Regulations . . . and Avoid Terminated Agreements, Fines, or Worse
A Simple Guide for Drafting of Conveyances in India : Forms of Conveyances and Instruments executed in the Indian sub-continent along with Notes and Tips