PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY.

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

"

the donors to the donees, the latter are donating
wholeheartedly and unconditionally free from any kind of lien
and debt. Likewise, it was accepted by the donees which is a
requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis causa
are never accepted during the donors lifetime.

The reservation clause which provides that the donees cannot
sell the lots to 3
rd
persons while the couple is still alive implies
that the ownership already passed.

Although there was a stipulation where the couple reserved to
themselves the administration, ownership and rights over the
properties mentioned, this should not be construed as to mean
that ownership will pass only after their death. This refers to
the beneficial ownership and not the naked title and what the
donors reserved to themselves by means of that clause was the
management of the donated lots and the fruits thereof.


10. REYES V. MOSQUEDA

The nature of the disposition made is the determinative
factor which makes the donation inter vivos or mortis
causa and not the title given to a deed of donation.

FACTS
Dr. Emilio Pascual died intestate and was survived by his sister
Ursula Pascual and the children of his late sisters, herein
petitioners Ruperto Reyes et. al. The heirs of Dr. Pascual filed
Special Proceedings No. 73-30-M in the CFI for the
administration of Pascuals estate. Ursula then filed a motion
to exclude some properties included alleging that these were
donated to her in a donation mortis causa in 1966. This was
granted by the CFI without prejudice to its final determination
in a separate action. An appeal was made to the SC. The SC
then issued a TRO enjoining the CFI from enforcing the order.

Among the properties donated to Ursula is lot 24 which was
also donated in 1969 in a deed of donation inter vivos in favor
of Ofelia Parungao who was then a minor at the time of the
donation. When she reached the age of majority, she had the
donation registered but found out that the certificate of title
was missing so she filed a petition for reconstitution of title
which was granted and she registered the donation and was
issued a new TCT in her name.

Ursula then sold the lot in favor of the Reyes. Benjamin Reyes
filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of Ofelias TCT
which prompted Ofelia to file a petition for recovery of
possession against Benjamin Reyes. The CFI issued a joint
decision for the 2 cases ruling that Ofelias TCT was null and
void. The IAC affirmed thus an appeal to the SC.

ISSUES
(1) W/N the probate has jurisdiction to exclude
properties donated to Ursula
(2) W/N the donation executed in favor of Ursula was a
donation inter vivos

RULING
(1) YES
It was stressed in the order of the probate court that
it was without prejudice to the final determination in
a separate action. It is well-settled that although a
probate court cannot adjudicate or determine title to
properties, it can determine whether or not the
properties should be included in the inventory to be
administered. Such determination is not conclusive
and is subject to the final decision in a separate
action.

(2) YES
Although the donation was entitled donations mortis causa it
has been held that dispositions in a deed of donation do
not depend on the title or term used in the deed of
donation. It is the body of the document which should be
considered in ascertaining the intention of the donor.

For a donation to be a donation mortis causa, the following
characteristics should be present:
1. It conveys no title before the death of the transferor or
the transferor retains ownership over the property
2. Before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the
transferor at will
3. The transfer is void should the transferor survive the
transferee

The following are not present in the case. The transfer of
ownership was immediate and independent of the death of the
donor. The provision stating that the donor has reserved
sufficient properties for himself to maintain him for life
confirms the intention of the donor to give naked ownership
immediately after execution of the deed of donation.


11. GESTOPA V CA

FACTS
Spouses Danlag own six parcels of land. To four parcels of
land, they executed a donation mortis causa in favor of
respondent Mercedes Danlag-Pilapil, reserving donor's rights to
amend, cancel, or revoke the donation and to sell or encumber
such properties. Years later, they executed another donation,
this time inter vivos, to six parcels of land in favor of
respondents, reserving their rights to the fruits of the land
during their lifetime and for prohibiting the donee to sell or
dispose the properties donated. Subsequently, the spouses sold
2 parcels to herein petitioners, spouses Gestopa, and
eventually revoking the donation. Respondent filed a petition
to quiet title, stating that she had already become the owner
of the parcels of land. Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners,
but CA reversed.

ISSUE: Whether the (second) donation was inter vivos or mortis
causa

RULING
It was donation inter vivos. The spouses were aware of the
difference between the two donations, and that they needed
to execute another deed of donation inter vivos, since it has a
A sale can still be valid (even if seller was not the owner at
the time of the sale) if ownership of the subject matter
reverts back to the donor of a donation that is subject to a
resolutory condition not being fulfilled.