GESTOPA v.

CA
GR 111904, Oct. 5, 2000

FACTS: Danlag spouses were owners of the 6 parcels of unregistered lands. They executed 3 deeds of
donation mortis causa in favor of private respondent Mercedes Danlag-Pilapil. All deeds contained the reservation
of the rights of the donors to amend, cancel or revoke the donation during the lifetime, and to sell, mortgage, or
encumber the properties donated during the donor’s lifetime, if deemed necessary.
On Jan. 1973, the husband, with the consent of the wife, executed a deed of donation inter vivos covering
the said parcels of land plus two other parcels which contained two conditions that the Danlag spouses shall
continue to enjoy the fruits of the land during their lifetime, 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.
On June & August 1979, the Danlag spouses sold 2 parcels of the land to the petitioners Gestopa and on
September of that same year, the Danlag spouses executed a deed of revocation recovering the 6 parcels of land
subject to the deed of donation intervivos. Private respondent filed a petition for quieting of title over the said
parcels of land against the petitioners and Danlag spouses alleging that she was the illegitimate daughter and the
deed of donation was executed in recognition of her incalculable beneficial services to the husband and her late
mother which she accepted in the same instrument. But through machination, intimidation and undue influence,
the husband persuaded the husband of private respondent to buy two of the six parcels covered by the deed of
donation which was coupled with conditions that the private respondents complied with.
The petitioner and Danlag spouses averred that the deed of donation was null and void because it was
obtained by private respondent through machinations and undue influence and even if it was validly executed, the
intention of the donation was for it to take effect upon the death of the donor.
The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner and Danlag spouses finding that the
reservation clause in all the deeds of donation indicated that the spouses did not make any donation. CA, on
appeal, reversed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE: WON the deed of donation was mortis causa or inter vivos?

HELD: The donation was inter vivos. In ascertaining the intention of the donor, all of the deed’s provisions
must be read together. The court cited the case of Alejandro vs. Geraldez where it held that an acceptance clause
is a mark that the donation is inter vivos. Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis
causa, being in the form of a will, are not required to be accepted by the donees during the donors’ lifetime.
The right to dispose of the properties belonged to the donee. The donor’s right to give consent was
merely intended to protect his usufructuary interests. In Alejandro, we ruled that a limitation on the right to sell
during the donors’ lifetime implied that ownership had passed to the donees and donation was already effective
during the donors’ lifetime.
A valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable, except on account of officiousness, failure by the
donee to comply with the charges imposed in the donation,