GESTOPA vs. COURT OF APPEALS disposing the land without the consent and approval of the Danlag spouses.

ithout the consent and approval of the Danlag spouses. This

G.R. No. 111904. October 5, 2000 implied that the donor still had control and ownership over the donated
Author: Balbastro properties. Hence, the donation was post mortem

Petitioner: SPS. AGRIPINO GESTOPA and ISABEL SILARIO GESTOPA ISSUE: Whether the donation was inter vivos or mortis causa
Respondent: COURT OF APPEALS and MERCEDES DANLAG y PILAPIL
RULING + RATIO: DONATION INTER VIVOS
Topic: Donor’s Tax; Donation Inter Vivos - Crucial in resolving whether the donation was inter vivos or mortis causa is the
DOCTRINE: determination of whether the donor intended to transfer the ownership over the
1. Granting clause (donor donated the property out of love and affection) and properties upon the execution of the deed. To ascertain the intention of the
Acceptance clause is a mark of donation inter vivos. donor, all of the deed's provisions must be read together.
2. Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis causa, - In this case, it can gleaned in the deed that:
being in the form of a will, are not required to be accepted by the donees 1. There was a granting clause showing that Diego donated the properties out
during the donors' lifetime. of love and affection for the donee which is a mark of a donation inter vivos.
2. The reservation of lifetime usufruct indicates that the donor intended to
FACTS : transfer the naked ownership over the properties.
- Spouse Danlag were owners of six parcels of unregistered lands 3. The donor reserved sufficient properties for his maintenance in accordance
- They executed three deeds of donation mortis causa, in favor of private with his standing in society, indicating that the donor intended to part with
respondent Mercedes Danlag-Pilapil. the six parcels of land.
- All deeds contained the reservation of the rights of the donors 4. Lastly, the donee accepted the donation. In the case of Alejandro vs.
(1) to amend, cancel or revoke the donation during their lifetime, and Geraldez, it was ruled that an acceptance clause is a mark that the donation
(2) to sell, mortgage, or encumber the properties donated during the donors' lifetime, if is inter vivos. Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter vivos.
deemed necessary. Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are not required to be
- Diego Danlag, with the consent of his wife, Catalina Danlag, executed a deed of accepted by the donees during the donors' lifetime.
donation inter vivos covering the same parcels of land again in favor of private
respondent Mercedes with conditions that: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is DENIED. The assailed decision of the Court
(1) the Danlag spouses shall continue to enjoy the fruits of the land during their lifetime,
of Appeals dated August 31, 1993, is AFFIRMED.
and that
(2) the donee cannot sell or dispose of the land during the lifetime of the said spouses,
without their prior consent and approval.
- Mercedes caused the transfer of the parcels' tax declaration to her name and
paid the taxes on them.
- However, Sps. Danlag sold two parcels to petitioners and executed a deed of
revocation recovering the six parcels of land subject of the deed of donation
inter vivos.
- Mercedes Pilapil filed with the RTC a petition against the Gestopas and the
Danlags, for quieting of titles over the above parcels of land.
- RTC: In favor of Respondents and revoked both donations.
- CA: Reversed RTC. Hence, this petition for review

PETITIONERS CONTENTION:
- Appellate court overlooked the fact that the donor did not only reserve the right
to enjoy the fruits of the properties, but also prohibited the donee from selling or
 DEL ROSARIO vs. FERRER
G.R. No. 187056. September 20, 2010
Author: Balbastro
Petitioner: JARABINI G. DEL ROSARIO
Respondent: ASUNCION G. FERRER, substituted by her heirs, VICENTE, PILAR, ANGELITO,
FELIXBERTO, JR., all surnamed G. FERRER, and MIGUELA FERRER ALTEZA
Topic: Donor’s Tax; Donation Inter Vivos
DOCTRINE:
1. If a donation by its terms is inter vivos, this character is not altered by the fact
that the donor styles it mortis causa.
2. Express irrevocability of the donation is the distinctive standard that identifies
the document as a donation inter vivos.
3. Acceptance clause indicates that the donation is inter vivos, since acceptance is
a requirement only for such kind of donations. Donations mortis causa, being in
the form of a will, need not be accepted by the donee during the donors
lifetime.
4. 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 subject of the deed.
FACTS :
- Spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales executed a document entitled
Donation Mortis Causa in favor of their two children and their granddaughter.
- Although denominated as a donation mortis causa, which is equivalent of a will,
the deed had no attestation clause and was witnessed by only two persons.
- Also, the named donees signified their acceptance of the donation on the face of
the document.
- When donor wife died, Leopoldo, the donor husband, executed a deed of
assignment of his rights and interests in subject property to their daughter
Asuncion. Then, Leopoldo died.
- Jarabini filed a petition for the probate of the deed of donation mortis causa
before the Regional Trial Court.
- RTC : donation was inter vivos. Thus, subsequent assignment of rights by
Leopoldo was void.
- CA reversed RTC decision. MR denied. Hence this petition.
- If a donation by its terms is inter vivos, this character is not altered by the fact
that the donor styles it mortis causa. Thus, the caption Donation Mortis Causa in
the document is not controlling.
- In addition, the express irrevocability of the donation is the distinctive standard
that identifies the document as a donation inter vivos. Here, the donors plainly
said that it is our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall be irrevocable and
shall be respected by the surviving spouse. The intent to make the donation
irrevocable becomes even clearer by the proviso that a surviving donor shall
respect the irrevocability of the donation. Consequently, the donation was in
reality a donation inter vivos.
- The Court also held that an acceptance clause indicates that the donation is inter
vivos, since acceptance is a requirement only for such kind of donations.
Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, need not be accepted by the
donee during the donor’s lifetime. In this case, three donees signed their
acceptance of the donation, which acceptance the deed required.
- Nonetheless, as Justice J. B. L. 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 subject
of the deed.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition, SETS ASIDE the assailed December 23, 2008
Decision and March 6, 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV 80549, and
REINSTATES in toto the June 20, 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 19, in Sp. Proc. 98-90589.

ISSUE: Whether or not the spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupes donation was a donation
mortis causa, as it was denominated, or in fact a donation inter vivos.

RULING + RATIO: INTER VIVOS