PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY.

AMPIL) 15
th
week Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|

"

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 Belen Aldaba are being disputed in this
case. Petitoners Dr. Vicente Aldaba and Jane Aldaba, father
and daughter, lived with Belen Aldaba for 10 years and took
care of her until her death. Belen had presumptive heirs her
surviving husband Estanislao Bautista, and her brother Cesar
Aldaba (represented as the respondents in this case.) After the
death of Belen, the respondents asked the petitioners to leave
the premises and upon their refusal, the former instituted an
ejectment case. The petitioners argue that Belen really
intended to donate the property to them as evidence by the
note written by Belen to them which reads, Huag kayong
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 P53,000.
The respondents contend that the letter no way proves a
donation.

ISSUE: W/N there was a disposition of property by Belen in
favour of the petitioners?

RULING: NO
For the following reasons: (1) 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. (2) no notarial
document was executed by Belen to the petitioners during
those 10 years. (3) P53,000 worth of services made by the
petitioners no way proves the alleged donation. If 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 emphasized that there was no express agreement
between the parties and that respondents Jane did not even
expect to be compensated.


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 2 parcels of agricultural
land. Petitioners herein are heirs of Melquiades Seville who
was one of the siblings of the deceased Arsenio Seville.
Respondents are other heirs claiming rightful ownership over
the properties. The petitioners claim that the 2 parcels of land
with improvements thereon was donated to their father in an
affidavit executed by Arsenio Seville to Melquindes Seville. It
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 I make this affidavit to amek manifest my intention and
desire as to the way the above mentioned property...) to
inherit all his properties.

ISSUES: W/N there was a valid donation from Arsenio Seville to
Melquiades Seville?

RULING: NO.
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 knowledge of the Melquiades
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.
It was even foreclosed but was later on redeemed by one of
Arsenios brothers, Zoilo, who is also one of the respondents.

Petitioners has a rightful claim over the property based on the
fact that they are heirs of Arsenio but not because of the
alleged affidavit executed in favour of Melquidas.

Also it is worth noting that the signed affidavit is a forgery
because Arsenio Sevile was illiterate during his lifetime. He
could not write his name and only affixed his thumbmak in the
REM mentioned earlier.


3. HOWARD v. PADILLA
FACTS:
Marie Howard is the widow of the donor. The donated propert
was conjugal in nature. The CA ruled that the donation was
inter vivos, not mortis causa. As such it is valid and
irrevocable. It is valid, however, only up to the extent of the
share of the donor in the property.

ISSUE: Is the donation mortis causa or inter vivos?

HELD: The donation is mortis causa which takes effect upon
the death of the donor. Therefore, the donation not having
conformed with the formalities of the law, the same is void.


4. PUIG v. PENAFLORIDA
FACTS:
Carmen Ubalde Vda. de Parcon died in the City of Iloilo,
without forced heirs, leaving certain properties in the City and
province of Iloilo. She left a will and was survived by nephews
and nieces, children of her predeceased brother, Catalino
Ubalde, and sister, Luisa Ubalde, married to Ariston Magbanua.
Besides her will, the deceased had executed two notarial
deeds of donation. One, entitled DONACION MORTIS CAUSA,
was executed on November 24, 1948, in favor of her niece,
Estela Magbanua. The deceased executed another deed of
Donations must conform with the formalities set by law.
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.