%avier v. v. Posadas, 52 P$il. 55& 55& ather Braulio 4ineda died in anuary 19 without any ascendants or Facts: ! Facts: !ather descendants lea%ing a will in which he instituted his sister "rene 4ineda as his sole heiress. 8uring his lietime !ather !ather Braulio donated some o his property $y the instruments to the si& plainti2s, se%erally, with the condition that some o them would pay him a certain amount o rice, and others o money e%ery year, and with the e&press pro%ision that ailure to ul'll this condition would re%o5e the donations ipso acto. (he donations contained another clause that they would ta5e e2ect upon acceptance. (hey were accepted during !ather Braulios lietime $y e%ery one o the 'ss(e: "s the donation inter %i%os or mortis causa: Held: "nter Held: "nter %i%os. "n the donees. 'ss(e: "s donations in ;uestion, their e2ect, that is, the ac;uisition o, or the right to, the property, was produced while the donor d onor was still ali%e, or according to their e&pressed terms they were to ha%e this e2ect upon acceptance, and this too5 place p lace during the donors lietime. (he nature o these donations is not a2ected $y the act that they were su$*ect to a condition, since it was imposed as a resolutory condition, and in this sense, it is necessarily implies that the right came into e&istence 'rst as well as its e2ect, $ecause otherwise there would $e nothing to resol%e upon the nonul'llment o the condition imposed.
(he appellants dwelling dwelling on the words o the ourth ourth paragraph o the deed o git *ust ;uoted, = does not pass title during my lietime> $ut when " die, she shall $e the true owner o the two aorementioned aorementioned parcels,/ contend that the git in ;uestion is a donation mortis causa, and, the re;uisites and conditions indispensa$le or a will, according to article +0 o the Ci%il Code,
Held: (a5ing the deed a$o%e ;uoted as a whole, it is o$ser%ed, in the 'rst place, that ipolita Bala;ui, wishing to reward 4lacida 8ongso or the latters ser%ices since said 4lacidas childhood, who li%ed with her and was treated $y her as a daughter, she donated to her two parcels o $eing lac5ing is null and %oid.
land with their impro%ements> in the second place, it is noted that in the same deed ipolita Bala;ui guaranteed to 4lacida 8ongso and her heirs and successors, the right to said property thus conerred. !rom !rom the moment ipolita Bala;ui guaranteed the right granted $y her to 4lacida 8ongso to the two parcels o land $y %irtue o the deed o git, she surrendered such right> otherwise there would $e no need to guarantee said right. (hereore, when ipolita Bala;ui used the words upon which the appellants $ase their contention that the git in ;uestion is a donation mortis causa, the donor meant nothing else than that she reser%ed o hersel the possession and usuruct o said two parcels o land until her death, at which time the donee would $e a$le to dispose o them reely. Carino v. Aa/a, &0 P$il. 12 Facts: (he Facts: (he root cause cause o the present legal contro%ersy contro%ersy is a document on April 11, 191 $y 4etrona 4etrona ray and 8orotea ray. ray. (he se%enth clause recites as ollows Se%enth, we the sisters do here$y order that all these properties shall $e gi%en to those to whom they ha%e $een assigned $y %irtue o this instrument at the e&piration o thirty days ater the death o the last one to die $etween us. ?n uly 1, 193, !ather !ather !ernando @a. A$aya, respondent herein and 'rst cousin o 4etrona and 8orotea ray, interposed an opposition to the amended petition alleging that the document e&ecuted on April 11, 191, $y the ray sisters 6&hi$it C1 is null and %oid and praying that the court ma5e an ad*udication to that e2ect. )hile on the one hand, ose CariDo contended that 6&hi$it C1 is a donation inter %i%os creating at the time a trust, !ather !ather !ernando !ernando A$aya, on the other, alleged that said document is a will. Held: )e Held: )e concur in the conclusion o the Court o Appeals that the document in dispute is a donation mortis causa. (he se%enth clause o the document reciting reciting that /we the sisters do here$y order that all these properties shall $e gi%en to those to whom they ha%e $een assigned $y %irtue o this instrument at the e&piration o thirty days ater the death o the last one to die $etween us,/ considered in con*unction with the act that the grantors employed the terms /there shall gi%en to,/ /shall administer,/ and /shall /sh all $e administered,/ which ha%e reerence to the uture, clearly $rings orth the intention on the part o the ray sisters to ma5e the distri$ution o their estate, as mapped out in 6&hi$it C1, e2ecti%e ater their death. (he a$o%e;uoted se%enth clause, $eing without limitation, applies as well to the properties intended to $e distri$uted as to the properties merely to $e administered $y @iguel CariDo.
)onsato v. CA, #5 P$il. "1 the Court o !irst !irst "nstance o 4angasinan 4angasinan $y Facts: (he Facts: (he case was initiated in the respondents osea Etea and other heirs o 8omingo Bonsato and his wie Andrea
that the same were e&ecuted reely without the use o orce and %iolence, misrepresentation or intimidation. Held: "t Held: "t is true that the last paragraph in each donation contains the phrase /that ater the death o the donor the aoresaid donation shall $ecome e2ecti%e/ ;ue despues de la muerte del donante entrara en %igor dicha donacion/. owe%er, said e&pression must $e construed together with the rest o the paragraph, and thus ta5en, its meaning clearly appears to $e that ater the donors death, the donation will ta5e e2ect so as to ma5e the donees the a$solute owners o the donated d onated property, ree rom all liens and encum$rances> or it must $e remem$ered that the donor reser%ed or himsel a share o the ruits o the land donated. Such S uch reser%ation constituted a charge or encum$rance that would disappear upon the donors death, when ull title would $ecome %ested in the donees. Roman Cat$olic v. CA, 1# SCRA 500
Facts: 4ri%ate respondents alleged that the spouses 6use$io de Castro and @artina Rieta, now $oth deceased, e&ecuted a deed o donation in a%or o deendant Roman Catholic Arch$ishop o @anila co%ering a parcel o land. (he deed o donation allegedly pro%ides that the donee shall not dispose or sell the property within a period o one hundred years rom the e&ecution e&ecution o the deed o donation, otherwise a %iolation o such condition would render ipso acto null and %oid the deed o donation and the property would re%ert to the estate o the donors. "t is urther alleged, and while still within the prohi$iti%e period to dispose o the property, petitioner Roman Catholic Bishop o "mus transerred $y a deed o a$solute sale o the property su$*ect o the donation in a%or o petitioners !lorencio and Soledad C. "gnao in consideration o the sum o 411F,000. 00. As a conse;uence o the sale, (ranser (ranser Certi'cate o (itle was issued $y the Register o 8eeds in the name o said petitioner spouses. Held:
)hen a deed o donation, as in this case, e&pressly pro%ides or automatic re%ocation and re%ersion o the property donated, the rules on contract and the general rules on prescription should apply, and not Article 7+F o the Ci%il Code. Since Article 130+ o said Code authoriGes the parties to a contract to esta$lish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions not contrary to law, morals, good customs, pu$lic order or pu$lic policy, we are o the opinion that, at the %ery least, that stipulation o the parties pro%iding p ro%iding or automatic re%ocation o the deed o donation, without prior *udicial action or that purpose, is %alid su$*ect to the determination o the propriety o the rescission sought. )here such propriety is sustained, sust ained, the decision o the court will $e merely declaratory o the re%ocation, $ut it is not in itsel the re%ocatory act. DCS v. Heirs o D(la/, "0 SCRA "52 Sr. and "gnacia "gn acia Hicente e&ecuted a deed o Facts: (he Facts: (he spouses Ru'no 8ulay, Sr. donation in a%or o the @inistry o 6ducation and Culture. (he deed pro%ided, among others (hat or and in consideration o the $ene'ts that may $e deri%ed rom the use o the a$o%e descri$ed property which is intended or school purposes, the said 8?
land remained idle up to the present. Respondents also a%erred that the donation inter %i%os was ino-cious, since the th e late Ru'no 8ulay, Sr. Sr. donated more than what he could gi%e $y will. 4etitioners, through the ?-ce o the Solicitor eneral ?S, interposed the ollowing deenses a the 86CS complied with said condition $ecause the land was $eing used $y the school as its technology and home economics la$oratory> $ the donation was not ino-cious or the donors were the owners o '%e other parcels o land, all located at RiGal, Santiago City. City. Held: "t Held: "t is not amiss to state that other than the $are allegation o the deendantappellants, there is nothing in the records that could concretely pro%e that the condition o donation has $een complied with $y the deendantappellants. "n the same $readth, the planting o palay on the land donated can hardly $e considered and could not ha%e $een the /school purposes/ reerred to and intended $y the donors when they had donated the land in ;uestion. Also, the posture o the deendantappellants that the land donated is $eing used as technology and home economics la$oratory o the RiGal
)a(tista v. Sainiano, #2 P$il. #"" Facts: A part o the deed o donation reads as ollows
1.(hat meantime " am still li%ing, these properties donated are all yet at my disposal as well as the products therein deri%ed, and whate%er properties or property let undisposed o me during my lietime will $e the ones to $e recei%ed $y the donees i any. (he trial Court ound that the donation is conditional and onerous, onerous, $ecause $ecause the donor /continued to $e the owner o the properties donated in spite o the donation/ and /$ecause the donees were made to pay under their t heir personal responsi$ility responsi$ility all the de$ts o the donor incurred incurred $y him during d uring his lietime or illness, and to 'nance his uneral ser%ices upon his death,/ and held that it is null and %oid as to @arcelina and Candida surnamed Sa$iniano and Alredo de uGman, who were minors and were not duly represented $y their legal representati%es upon the acceptance o the donation.
properties Held: (he con%eyance to the donees $y way o donation o the properties descri$ed in the deed did not actually ta5e e2ect on the date o the e&ecution o the deed and o the acceptance thereo or the reason hereater to $e stated. "t is also unnecessary to e&press opinion on whether the acceptance made in the deed is lawul and %alid, or the reason that the owner reser%ed during his lietime the right to dispose o the properties purportedly donated and to $ene't rom the products thereo. thereo. 6&cept in the instances e&pressly pro%ided $y law, such as the su$se;uent $irth o children o the donor, ailure $y the donee to comply with the conditions imposed, ingratitude o the donee and reduction o the donation in the e%ent o ino-ciousness thereo, a donation is irre%oca$le . FR3A4'!'S 4a+ao v. Co(rt o A66eals, 2& SCRA 1 Facts: Catalina aco$ Hda. de Reyes Reyes was awarded a lot and thereater, thereater, e&ecuted e&ecuted a 8eed o 8onation o%er a #ot in a%or o plainti2appellee plainti2appellee . !ollowing the donation, plainti2appellee plainti2appellee chec5ed with the Register o 8eeds and ound out that the property was in the delin;uent list, so that he paid the installments in arrears and the remaining $alance on the lot and declared the said property in the name o Catalina aco$. Ater Ater repeated demands demands to her agent, agent, her soninlaw, soninlaw, the deendant deendant herein, Catalina issued a demand letter, $ut the deendant reused to %acate the premises. 4laint2, thereore, 'led a complaint, contending that the $urdens, charges or conditions imposed upon a donation need not $e stated on the deed o donation itsel. itsel. (hus, although the deed did not categorically impose any charge, $urden or condition to $e satis'ed $y him, the donation was onerous since he in act and in reality paid or the installments in arrears and or the remaining $alance o the lot in ;uestion. Held: #i5e Held: #i5e any other contract, an agreement o the parties is
essential. (he donation, ollowing the theory o cognition Article 1319, Ci%il Code, is perected only upon the moment the donor 5nows o the acceptance $y the donee./ !urthermore, /JiK the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall $e noti'ed thereo in an authentic orm, and this step shall $e noted in $oth instruments./ Acceptance o the donation $y the donee is, thereore, indispensa$le> its a$sence ma5es the donation null and %oid.
7enato v. De 4oreno, 2 SCRA -1 Facts: 8oDa Facts: 8oDa Simona Hda. de enato e&plained that due to her ad%anced age it is more con%enient that !lorentino enato, now Hice4resident o the corporation, act as Assistant Secretary(reasurer. At this point the chairman in%ited the attention o the Board that it might $e ad%isa$le to reward the ser%ices o @r. @r. 6lpidio Hillamiel $y gi%ing him a $onus o one share o stoc5 o the corporation out o the (reasury stoc5, considering that the par %alue
thereo is only 4100.00. ?n uly L, 19FL, the 4hilippine (rust (rust Company, *udicial administrator o the intestate intestate estate, and the legal heirs to reco%er reco%er rom the other two legal heirs the 30 shares o stoc5 in order that they may $e included in the in%entory o the intestate estate o their deceased mother and in due course distri$uted among all the sur%i%ing children o the decedent. "n their answer, the deendant alleged that they had ac;uired the ownership o the 30 shares sh ares $y simple donation rom their mother. Held: As Held: As pointed out $y @anresa in his Commentaries to the Ci%il Code o 1LL9, the deli%ery $y the donor and the acceptance $y donee must $e simultaneous, and the acceptance $y a person other than the true donee must $e authoriGed $y a proper power o attorney set orth in a pu$lic document.