http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 1 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
246
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 2 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
defray the expenses and support of the donors, then the sale is
valid. The limited right to dispose of the donated lots, which the
deed gives to the donees, implies that ownership had passed to
them by means of the donation and that, therefore, the donation
was already effective during the donorsÊ lifetime. That is a
characteristic of a donation inter vivos.
Same; All provisions of a deed of donation should be construed
together in case of conflicting statements therein. Case at bar.·The
habendum clause indicates the transfer of the ownership over the
donated properties to the donees upon the execution of the deed.
But the reddendum clause seems to imply that the ownership was
retained by the donors and would be transferred to the donees only
after their death. We have reflected on the meaning of the said
contradictory
247
clauses. All the provisions of the deed, like those of a statute and
testament, should be construed together in order to ascertain the
intention of the parties. That task would have been rendered easier
if the record shows the conduct of the donors and the donees after
the execution of the deed of donation. x x x Our conclusion is that
the aforequoted paragraph 3 of the reddendum or reservation
clause refers to the beneficial ownership (dominium utile) and not
to the naked title and that what the donors reserved to themselves,
by means of that clause, was the management of the donated lots
and the fruits thereof. But, notwithstanding that reservation, the
donation, as shown in the habendum clause, was already effective
during their lifetime and was not made in contemplation of their
death because the deed transferred to the donees the naked
ownership of the donated properties. That conclusion is further
supported by the fact that in the deed of donation, out of the 8 lots
owned by the donors, only 5 were donated.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 3 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
AQUINO, J.:
„ ÂKASULATAN NG PAGKAKALOOBÊ ‰
(A DEED OF DONATION)
248
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 4 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
P A G P A P A T U N A Y:
„(a) ·Na ang lupang sinasaysay sa Lote No. 2502 o Titulo No. 7336,
(No. 1) sa unahan nito ay hinati sa dalawang parte ang unang
parte (1/2) na nasa bandang Kanluran (West) ay ipinagkakaloob
ng magasawang Gabino Diaz at Severa Mendoza sa kanilang
anak na si Angel Diaz, kasal kay Catalina Marcelo; at ang
ikalawang parte (1/2) na nasa bandang silangan (East) ay
ipinagkakaloob ng magasawang Gabino Diaz at Severa Mendoza
sa kanilang anak na si Andrea Diaz, kasal kay Perfecto Marcelo.‰
(Note·Some dispositions are not reproduced verbatim but are
merely summarized because they are not involved in this case.
Paragraph (a) above is the one involved herein).
249
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 5 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
(b) ·Lot No. 2485, TCT No. 10998, to Regina Fernando (daughter-
in-law of the donors and widow of their deceased son, Miguel
Diaz) and Olimpia Diaz in equal shares.
(c) ·Lot No. 2377, TCT No. 10840, 1/3 to Angel Diaz, 1/3 to Andrea
Diaz, and 1/3 „ay inilalaan o inihahanda ng magasawang Gabino
Diaz at Severa Mendoza sa kanilang sariling kapakanan o mga
gastos nila‰.
(d) ·Lot No. 2448, TCT No. 10997 to Olimpia Diaz „sa condicion na
pagkakalooban ni Olimpia Diaz si Crisanta de la Cruz, asawa ni
Alejandrom···(sic) sakaling si Crisanta ay mamatay ng
halagang isang daang piso (P100), bilang gastos sa libing.‰
„(e) ·Na ang lupang-solar na sinasayaay sa Lote No. 4168 o Titulo
No. 2051 (No. 5); lupang-bukid na sinasaysay sa Lote No. 2522 o
Titulo No. 17960 (No. 6); at lupang-bukid na sinasaysay sa Lote
No. 2521 o Titulo No. 17961 (No. 7) sa unahan nito ay inilalaan o
inihahanda ng magasawang Gabino Diaz at Severa Mendoza sa
kanilang sariling kapakanan o mga gastos nila.‰
(f) ·Lot No. 2643, TCT No. 21453, to Regina Fernando and her
children with the deceased Miguel Diaz in whose name the said
Lot was already registered.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 6 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
250
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 7 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
251
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 8 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
a valid donation inter vivos and that the trial court erred in
deleting the award for attorneyÊs fees.
The Alejandro intervenors contend that the said
donation is mortis causa; that they are entitled to a one-
third share in Lot No. 2502, and that the trial court erred
in characterizing the deed as a valid partition. In the
ultimate analysis, the appeal involves the issue of whether
the Alejandro intervenors should be awarded one-third of
Lot No. 2502, or 1,892 square meters thereof, as intestate
heirs of the Diaz spouses.
To resolve that issue, it is necessary to determine
whether the deed of donation is inter vivos or mortis causa.
A brief exposition on the nature of donation inter vivos and
mortis causa may facilitate the resolution of that issue.
Many legal battles have been fought on the question of
whether a particular deed is an inter vivos or mortis causa
donation. The copious jurisprudence on that point sheds
light on that vexed question. The Civil Code provides:
„ART. 728. Donations which are to take effect upon the death of the
donor partake of the nature of testamentary provisions, and shall
be governed by the rules established in the Title on Succession.
„ART. 729. When the donor intends that the donation shall take
effect during the lifetime of the donor, though the property shall not
be delivered till after the donorÊs death, this shall be a donation
252
inter vivos. The fruits of the property from the time of the
acceptance of the donation, shall pertain to the donee, unless the
donor provides otherwise, (n)
„ART. 730. The fixing of an event or the imposition of a
suspensive condition, which may take place beyond the natural
expectation of life of the donor, does not destroy the nature of the
act as a donation inter vivos, unless a contrary intention appears,
(n) ART. 731. When a person donates something subject to the
resolutory condition of the donorÊs survival, there is a donation inter
vivos. (n)
„ART. 732. Donations which are to take effect inter vivos shall be
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 9 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
253
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 10 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 11 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
254
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 12 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
255
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 13 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
256
Phil. 68).
6. That a conveyance for an onerous consideration is
governed by the rules of contracts and not by those
of donations or testaments (Carlos vs. Ramil, 20
Phil. 183; Manalo vs. De Mesa, 29 Phil. 495).
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 14 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
257
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 15 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 16 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
258
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 17 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
259
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 18 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
260
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 19 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 20 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
261
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 21 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
262
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 22 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
263
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 23 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
264
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 24 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
donation.
In the Puig case the donor in another deed entitled
„Escritura de Donacion mortis Causa‰ dated December 28,
1949 donated to the same donee, Estela Magbanua
Peñaflorida, three parcels of land „en concepto de una
donacion mortis causa „ in consideration of past services. It
was provided in the deed „que antes de su muerte, la
donante, podra enajenar vender, traspasar o hipotecar a
cualesquiera persona o entidades los bienes aqui donados a
favor de la donataria en concepto de una donacion mortis
causa‰. The donee accepted the donation in the same deed.
After the donorÊs death both deeds were recorded in the
registry of deeds. In the donorÊs will dated March 26, 1951,
which was duly probated, the donation of a parcel of land in
the second deed of donation was confirmed.
Under these facts, it was held that the 1948 deed of
donation mortis causa was inter vivos in character in spite
of repeated expressions therein that it was a mortis causa
donation and that it would take effect only upon the donorÊs
death. Those expressions were not regarded as controlling
because they were contradicted by the provisions that the
donee would defray the donorÊs expenses even if not
connected with her illness and that the doneeÊs husband
would assume her obligations under the deed, should the
donee predecease the donor. Moreover, the donor did not
reserve in the deed the absolute right to revoke the
donation.
But the 1949 deed of donation was declared void because
it was a true conveyance mortis causa which was not
embodied in a last will and testament. The mortis causa
character of the disposition is shown by the donorÊs
reservation of the right to alienate or encumber the
donated properties to any person or entity.
In the Cuevas case, supra, one Antonina Cuevas
executed on September 18, 1950 a notarial conveyance
styled as „Donacion Mortis Causa‰ where she ceded to her
nephew Crispulo Cuevas a parcel of unregistered land.
Crispulo accepted the donation in the same instrument.
Subsequently, or on May 26, 1952, the donor revoked the
donation.
The deed of donation in the Cuevas case contained the
following provisions which, as in similar cases, are
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 25 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
265
Translation
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 26 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
266
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 27 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
________________
267
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 28 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
________________
268
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 29 of 30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078 20/09/2017, 2)36 AM
482).
A deed of donation of conjugal property executed by the
husband cannot be registered due to the fact that a portion
of the property donated is more than his one-half share.
(Balbin vs. Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur, 28 SCRA 12).
··o0o··
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015e9b7f5065ab8855ec003600fb002c009e/p/APF467/?username=Guest Page 30 of 30