Cuevas v Cuevas, G.R. No.

L-8327, Dec 14, 1955

Ruling: When the deed of donation provides that the donor will not dispose or take away the
property donated (thus making the donation irrevocable), he in effect is making a donation inter
vivos. He parts away with his naked title but maintains beneficial ownership while he lives.
It remains to be adonation inter vivos despite an express provision that the donor continues to be
in possession and enjoyment of the donated property while he is alive.
Heirs of Bonsato v Court of Appeals, L-6600, July 30, 1954
Ruling: The donation was inter vivos.
(a) There is no stipulation that the donation was essentially revocable; as a matter of fact, the
deed expressly declared it irrevocable.
(b) The reservation as to the fruits and produce would have been unnecessary had the donor
continued to be the owner.
(c) The provision of effectivity after death simply meant that absolute ownership (including
the usufruct) would pertain to the donee after the donors death.
150. Austria-Magat v Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106755, Feb 1, 2002
Ruling: A provision in the deed of donation inquestion providing for the irrevocability of the
donation is a characteristic of a donation inter vivos. By those words, the donor expressly
renounced the right to freely dispose of the house and lot in question. The right to dispose of a
property is a right essential to full ownership.Hence, ownership of the house and lot was already
with the donees even during the donors lifetime.
David v Sison, G.R. No. 49108, March 26, 1946
Ruling: Yes.
The deed of donation makes it clear that all rents, proceeds, fruits, of the donated properties
shall remain for the exclusive benefit and disposal of the donor, Margartia David, during her
lifetime and that, without the knowledge 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
making the donees just 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 execution of the deed of donation and of
the above-quoted clauses thereof could not have taken effect before the death of Margarita
David. According to the terms of the deed, the most essential elements of ownership the right
to dispose of the donated properties and the right to enjoy the products, profits, possession
remained with Margarita David during her lifetime, and would accrue to the donees only after
Margarita David's death.
While the donation in question is a donation mortis causa, the court declined to rule that the
donated properties should be 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 P10,000 instead of the P81,000 he craved.