[Donations; persons who may give or receive
There could be no implied contract because as
donations]
1.Aldaba v CA
1. Belen Aldaba is a rich woman of Malolos, who
died and is survived by her presumptive heirs:
husband Estanislao and brother Cesar.
2. She left 2 lots in Sta Mesa, Manila.
3. Around 4 months after her death, her heirs
executed a deed of extrajudicial partition of
the lots.
4. 2 years later, Cesar andEmmanuel (the
grandson of her husband from his first
marriage) executed a deed where the 2 lots
allotted to Cesar was ceded to Emmanuel in
exchange of Emmanuel’s lot in San Juan
a. Because of this, Emmanuel required
petitioner Dr. Vicente Aldaba and his
wife Jane who was occupying the lot
to vacate. Dr. Vincente Aldaba
refused.
5. According to Dr. Vicente Aldaba, he had
rendered services to Belen as her physician,
for 10 years until her death, without
compensation.
a. Thus, for compensation, Belen gave
them the lots including the
improvements thereon.
b. Since the donation is onerous, it
must be govered by Art. 733 and not
749, meaning, it doesn’t need to be
in a public instrument. He proved
this through a note made by Belen
saying: Jane, Huwag kayong umalis
diyan. Talagang iyan ay para sa inyo.
Alam nila na iyan ay sa inyo.
6. Being onerous, the donation is valid even if it
was done orally.
7. Respondents contends that the note is vague,
it doesn’t conclude that there’s a donation,
and if it really was theirs, why didn’t they
transfer the property in their names.
ISSUE: WON there was a donation. NO.
1. Though the note expressed that the property
was intended for the petitioners, no evidence
was shown that such intention was effectively
carried out after the writing of the note
2. Even supposing for sake of argument that the
writing of the note had already been a
disposition of the property in favor of the
petitioners, this alone would not make the
donation a donation for a valuable
consideration
a. Nothing in the record shows that an
express agreement between
petitioners (Vicente and Jane) and
Belen Aldaba was made where the
later would pay for the services of
the former
3.
shown in the record Jane did not expect to be
paid for her services.
4. No showing of an express agreement in the
record. All petitioners could claim was that it
was impliedly understood
5. Costs against petitioner Dr. Aldaba.
2. Jutic v CA
1. During Arsenio Seville’s lifetime, he owned 2
agricultural lands in Davao del Norte, a
residential house on one of the lands, a rice
and corn mill, and 5 carabaos
2. Arsenio executed an affidavit in favor of
Melquiades Seville, his brother, stating that he
has no one to inherit his properties except his
brother, that in case he dies, he will assign all
his rights to his properties to his brother, but
as long as he’s still alive, he will be the one to
possess, enjoy and benefit from the produce
of the land.
3. Arsenio mortgaged said properties to PNB in
consideration of a loan. This was done with
the knowledge and consent of his brother.
4. Aresenio died, he was survived by his brothers
and sisters, when Meliquiades died though, his
children are claiming ownership over the
properties and improvements based on the
donation made by Arsenio in favor of their
father, Melquidaes. They also claim that they
possessed, occupied and cultivated on the
lots, and have been doing so continuously and
peacefully in the concept of an owner up to
the time of Arsenio’s death
ISSUE: WON the affidavit of Arsenio constitutes a deed
or instrument of donation inter vivos NO
1. Affidavit is not a donation inter vivos or mortis
causa but a mere declaration of an intention
and a desire. Certainly, it is not a formal act of
giving or donating
2. There;s no clear intention to transfer
ownership from Arenio to Meluiqdaes at the
time of the instrument’s execution, it’s only an
intention or desire of Arsenio that his
properties will go to his brother
3. SC held that it’s quite apparent that Arsenio
was thinking of succession. And donations
which shall take effect upon the death of the
donor partakes the nature of a testamentary
provision and is thus governed by rules of
succession
4. Moreover, contrary to petitioner’s argument,
there was no immediate transfer of title upon
execution of the affidavit, since Arsenio was
still able to mortgage his properties to PNB.
The property was even extrajudicially
foreclosed when Arsenio died and no one
continued the payment, even the petitioners.
5. It’s important to note that the signed affidavit
is a forgery because Arsenio Seville was
 illiterate during his lifetime. He could not write
his name. He executed documents by affixing
his thumbmark
3. Howard v Padilla
1. The case involves 2 petitions for review of the
decision of CA declaring that the donation in
question is, by its nature inter vivos, and not
mortis causa, and is thus valid and irrevocable.
The CA decision also declared that it is valid
insofar as the share of the donor of the
property donated is concerned, because it
can’t prejudice the share of Marie Howard, the
widow of the donor, since it’s conjugal in
nature. In addition to this, CA also ordered
that the adjudication be noted on the title
covering the property
ISSUE: WON the donation is mortis cause and thus, to be
considered void YES
1. The donation is mortis causa or one to take
effect after death. But since it was not
executed with the formalities of the law
regarding wills, the same shall be void and
without effect.
2. In this respect, the decision of CA is reversed,
but it is affirmed insofar as it held that Marie
Howard is the legal widow of the deceased.
4. Puig v Penaflorida
1. Carmen Ubalde died in Iloilo without forced
heirs, leaving certain properties.
2. She left a will and was survived by her
nephews and nieces, the children of her
brother and sister.
3. She also executed 2 notarial deeds of donation
(Donacion Mortis Causa) in favor of her niece
respondent Estela, purporting to convey 3
properties covered by 2 TCTs registered in
Iloilo
4. The deed of mortis causa was subject to the
following conditions:
a. Since the donation will only take
effect upon her death, the donor has
the option of mortgaging and selling
her proeprties without need to
notify the donees
b. Donee will cover all expenses
necessary for the medical, hospital,
and funeral expenses of donor
unless donor has funds in the bank
c. Transfer of land will only take effect
upon death of donor
d. If donee dies before donor, the
donation will have an effect in favor
of the descendant’s donee and
donee’s husband will be the one to
pay for her medical and funeral
expenses
e. The deed won’t be presented to
ROD until donor dies
5. Carmen executed another deed of donation in
favor of Estela again, conveying 3 parcels of
land with the following conditions:
a. The donor transfer to the donee 3
parcels of land in consideration of
the services rendered to donor. One
of the land donated is only half a
portion *Pototan Cadastre
b. That if on the day the donor dies the
other half of the Pototan Cadastre
hasn’t been sold to 3rd parites,
donee agrees to pay Caridad Ubalde
600 pesos
c. Donor may transfer, sell, or
mortgage the parcels of land to any
person before her death
d. The deed won’t be presented to
ROD until donor dies
6. When Carmen died, the deeds were
registered. The will executed was submitted to
CFI.
7. The nephews and nieces of Carmen Ubalde
Puig filed an action against respondent Estela
seeking to have the donation set aside
because of lack of compliance with
testamentary formalities
8. CFI ruled that the donations are void.
ISSUE: WON the donations were inter vivos or mortis
causa
1st – inter vivos (valid); 2nd- mortis causa (invalid)
1. An essential characteristic of mortis causa is
that the donation can be revoked (expressly or
necessary implication) ad nutum or at the
discretion of the donor, simply because he
changed his mind
2. Thus, if there is a specification in the deed
which lists down the the acts that can revoke
the donation indicates that the donation is
inter vivos.
a. In case of doubt, it must be
considered a donation inter vivos
rather than mortis causa to avoid
uncertainty as to the ownership of
the property subject of the deeds
3. Although designated as “mortis causa” such
designation is inconclusive because of certain
contradictions found in the deed itself.
a. Conveyance was made in
consideration of undertaking of
donee to bear medical expenses of
donor without specifying when such
expenses are incurred. Medical
expenses to be borne by the donee
may or may not be connected with
donor’s last illness
b. While there is a clause that the
donor reserved her right "to
mortgage or even sell the donated
property, when and if she should
 need funds to meet her own needs",
this is contrary to the donor’s
freedom to revoke a true
conveyance of mortis causa, which
can be revoked at her own
discretion
c. If Carmen wished or intended to
retain the right to change the
destination of her property, there
was no reason for her to specify the
cause for which she could sell or
encumber the property covered by
donation.
d. Failure to record donation will not
render it void, however it only binds
the parties thereto.
4. There is a donation inter vivos when the
power to revoke is limited to a specific
purpose as compare to mortis causa where a
donor can revoke at his own will, for any
reason
5. The 2nd donation is mortis causa but is void for
failing to conform with the formalities of the
law
a. Nevertheless, the second donation
has an exception. The conveyance of
the high and dry portion of lot 2053
was confirmed and validated by the
will executed by Carmen. It is not a
valid donation but it is a valid
testamentary legacy.
5. Sicad v CA
1. Aurora Montinola drew up a deed of donation
in favor of her 3 grandkids Catalino, Judy and
Jesus Valderama –the deed was titled Deed of
Donation Inter Vivos
2. Subsequently, the deed was presented to the
registrar for the purpose of cancelling the
original title and transferring it under the
name of her grandchildren
3. However, the duplicate title never reached the
donees, Aurora retained and maintained
possession of the property for 10 years after
the transfer
4. Aurora also alienated the land to sps. Sicad
and issued a Deed of Revocation of Donation.
She asserted that the donation took the
nature of mortis causa and thus she can
revoke it any time. Morever, the deed failed to
follow the formalities needed
5. Aurora’s grandchildren found their grandma’s
reversal vexing. They insisted that the Deed
was one inter vivos and therefore irrevocable.
The RTC adjudicated and found for the
grandchildren.
6. Aurora took the case to the CA but, died
during the proceedings. Thus, Sps. Sicad took
Aurora’s place in litigation. CA affirmed RTC
decision.
ISSUE: WON the donation is inter vivos NO, it is mortis
causa
1. The court found circumstances signifying that
Aurora never intended the donation to take
effect within her lifetime.
a. She expressed that the donation
take effect 10 years after her death.
b. She inserted a prohibition on the
sale of the property during the 10
year period.
c. She continued to possess the
property as well as the fruits and
authorized such enjoyment in the
deed of donation.
d. She retained the certificate of title
and subsequently alienated it in
favor of the Sicads. All these are
indisputable acts of ownership.
2. The court then concluded that the real nature
of a deed is to be ascertained by both its
language and the intention of the parties as
demonstrated by the circumstances attendant
upon its execution. –not what its title is
3. The deed subject of litigation is one mortis
causa because it stipulated ―that all rents,
proceeds, fruits, of the donated properties
shall remain for the exclusive benefit and
disposal of the donor, during her lifetime; and
that, without the knowledge and consent of
the donor, the donated properties could not
be disposed of in any way, whether by sale,
mortgage, barter, or in any other way
possible.
4. A donation which pretends to be one inter
vivos but withholds form the donee that right
to dispose of the donated property during the
donor’s lifetime is in truth one mortis causa. In
a donation mortis causa ― the right of
disposition is not transferred to the donee
while the donor is still alive.
5. Because of Aurora’s actions, nothing was
transferred by the deed of donation in
question to her grandchildren.
6. David v Sison
7. Maglasang v Heirs of Corazon Cabatingan
1. Conchita executed in favor of her brother
Nicolas a deed of conditional donation inter
vivos for a house and lot
2. Subsequently, 4 other deeds of donations
were executed by Conchita granting to
petitioner Estela 2 parcels of land, and to
Nicolas, a portion of the parcel of land and to
Merly a portion of land
3. All deeds contained the similar provisions that:
the deeds will become effective upon the
death of the donor, and if the donee dies
before the donor, the present donation will be
deemed automatically rescinded
 4. Conchita died.
5. Upon learning of the existence of the 4 deeds
of donations, the heirs of Corazon Cabatingan
filed an action to declare the nullity of the
deeds of donation alleging that petitioner
Estela fraudulently caused the donation and
that it didn’t comply with the formalities of
the wills and testaments because the deeds
are actually mortis causa and NOT inter vivos
ISSUE: WON the donation was mortis causa or intervivos
MORTIS CAUSA
1. To determine won a donation is mortis causa
the following should be taken into account:
a. Before the death of the donor,
ownership or title is NOT conveyed
b. Donor retains the ownership and
control of the property while alive
c. Before the death, the donation can
be revoked
d. Donation will be void if the donee
dies before the donor
2. Here, there is no showing of intention that the
property will be passed to the donee before
the death of the donor.
3. The phrase "to become effective upon the
death of the DONOR" admits of no other
interpretation but that Cabatingan did not
intend to transfer the ownership of the
properties to petitioners during her lifetime.
4. For donations mortis causa to be valid,
according to Art. 805, it must be subscribed at
the end by the testator himself, or another by
his express direction, in the presence of 3 or
more credible witnesses in the presence of the
testator and of each other
a. The deeds in question although
acknowledged before a notary
public of the donor and the donee,
the documents were not executed in
the manner provided for under the
above-quoted provisions of law.
8. Bonsato v CA
1. Josefa Utea and other heirs of Domingo
Bonsato and his wife Andrea, filed a complaint
(for annulment and damages) alleging that:
a. Domingo had been induced and
deceived into signing 2 notarial
deeds of donations in favor of his
brother Juan and nephew Felipe
b. That the donations were mortis
causa and is void for lack of
compliance with formalities
2. In reply, Juan and Felipe claims that:
a. The donations were made to them
voluntarily (without force nor
intimidation, misrepresentation or
violence) in consideration of past
services rendered by them in favor
of the deceased Domingo
3. TC – deeds of donation were executed by
Domingo with a sound mind and without
vitiated consent
a. Deeds are inter vivos but since the
properties donated are
presumptively conjugal, for having
been acquired during the marriage
of Domingo and his wife Andre, Juan
and Felipe can only get the
undivided ½ share in the 3 parcels
4. CA – donations are mortis causa executed
without formalities needed, and thus are
considered a void donation.
WON the donation is inter vivos or mortis causa – INTER
VIVOS
1. Nothing in the deeds of donation show that it
is mortis causa.
a. Domingo only reserved for himself,
during his lifetime, the owner’s
share of the fruits or produce
b. There is also an absence of a
stipulation that the donor could
revoke the donations by will
c. Deed stipulated that the donation is
irrevocable, which is completely
against the nature of mortis causa
donations
2. Though the last paragraph states that after the
death of the donor the donation shall become
effective, SC held that this must be construed
with the rest of the paragraph which states
that  after the donor’s death, the donation
will take effect so as to make the donees the
absolute owners of the donated property, free
from all encumbrances.
3. Such reservation constituted a charge or
encumbrance that would disappear upon the
donor’s death, when full title would become
vested in the donees.
9. Reyes v Mosqueda
1. When Dr. Pascual died, he was survived by his
sister Ursula dn the children of his late sisters
2. When the proceedings for the administration
Dr. Pascual’s estate begun, Ursula filed a
motion to exclude some of the properties
from the Dr.’s estate, saying that Dr. donated
properties to her, through donation mortis
causa (executed 1966)
a. TC – granted this, thus Ursula sold
the donated properties to the Reyes
3. However, petitioner Ofelia intervened and said
that one of the properties subject to the
proceedings for the administration of the
estate was actually donated by Dr. Emilio to
her (executed 1969). Thus she prays for the
exclusion of the property from the
proceedings
4. Because of this, Reyes filed to nullify the TCT
of Ofelia. CFI ruled in favor of Reyes
 5. Ofelia and the administrator of Emilio’s estate,
in separate civil proceedings, together raised
the issue of whether or not the 1966
“donation mortis causa” of Ursula is actually a
donation inter vivos, which may be excluded
from Emilio’s estate and which precedes the
1969 donation in favor of Ofelia.
ISSUE: WON the 1966 donation is actually a donation
inter vivos. YES
1. The donation in favor of Ursula is actually a
donation inter vivos, not donation mortis
causa.
2. Although the deed of donation was titled as
“DONATION MORTIS CAUSA”, it was actually a
donation inter vivos. The title given to a deed
of donation is not determinative factor which
makes the donation “inter vivos” or “mortis
causa”.
3. If it is a donation mortis causa, the documents
should reveal any or all of the following
characteristics:
a. It should not convey title or
ownership to the transferee before
the death of the transferor. The
transferor retains the ownership (full
or naked) and control of the
property while alive.
b. Before his death, the transfer should
be revocable by the transferor.
c. The transfer should be void if the
transferor should survive the
transferee.
4. Here, none is present. The donation was
executed by Dr. Pascual in favor of Ursula was
out of love and affection as well as recognition
of the personal services rendered by the
donee to the donor.
5. The transfer of ownership was immediate and
independent of the death of the donor. It was
the intention of the donor to give naked
ownership of the properties to the donee
immediately after the execution of the deed of
donation.
6. Thus, the property may be excluded from
Emilio’s estate which precedes the donation in
favor of Ofelia (Ofelia won)
10. Gestopa v CA
1. Sps. Danlag owned 6 parcels of unregistered
land. They executed 3 Deeds of Donations
Mortis Causa in favor of Mercedes Danlag-
Pilapil
a. All deeds contained a reservation of
the rights of the donor (1) to amend,
revoke, the donation during their
lifetime and (2) to sell, mortgage, or
encumber the properties during the
donor’s lifetime
2. The sps. executed a deed of donation inter
vivos covering the 4 parcels of land plus the 2
others again in favor of respondent Mercedes
with the condition that
a. Sps. Danlag will continue to enjoy
the fruits of the land and that the
donee (Mercedes) can’t sell or
dispose of the land during the
lifetime of sps. without their prior
consent and approval
3. Mercedes transferred the parcel’s tax
declaration under her name and paid their
taxes.
4. Sps. Danlag subsequently sold parcels 3 and 4
(the one covered under the mortis causa
donation) to sps. Gestopa
a. Sps. Danlag revoked the 6 parcels of
land donation to Mercedes subject
of donation inter vivos
5. Respondent Mercedes Pilapil filed with the
RTC a petition against the Gestopas and
Danlags, for quieting of title over the parcels
of land
a. Mercedes alleges that she’s the
illegitimate daughter of Diego, and
she lived and rendered services to
Diego and his mother. Diego
donated the 6 parcels of land in
consideration of this.
b. She has been exercising ownership
over the properties and even caused
the tax to be transferred under her
name
6. Sps. Danlag and Gestopa alleges that
a. Deed of donation was null and void
since it was obtained by Mercedes
through undue influence
b. Moreover, the intention of the
donation was to be transferred upon
the death of the donor
7. RTC – ruled in favor of Gestopas. CA –
reversed, declared Mercedes as the absolute
owner
ISSUE: WON the donation was inter vivos or mortis
causa INTER VIVOS, so Mercedes won.
1. The provisions of the deed shows that the
properties were donated out of love and
affection for the donee  mark of inter vivos
2. The fact that the donors reserved the right to
use the fruits shows intention to transfer
NAKED OWNERSHIP over the properties even
while they’re living
3. Donee accepted the donation. 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 donors'
lifetime.
4. Moreover, the fact that the sps. Danlag
executed 3 donations mortis causa before the
executing the donation inter vivos shows the
 intent for ownership to be transferred upon
execution of the deeds.
a. Sps. Danlag were aware of the
difference between the 2 donations.
If they did not intend to donate inter
vivos, they would not again donate
the 4 lots mortis causa
5. Donation inter vivos is revocable only by law –
on account of failure by the donee to comply
with the charges imposed in the donation,
ingratitude  these weren’t invoked by sps.
Danlag
11. Del Rosario v Ferrer
1. Sps. Guadalupe and Leopoldo Gonzales
executed a deed of donation mortis causa in
favor of their 2 children and granddaughter
Jarabini (daughter of their predeceased son,
Zoilo) over their house and lot in Manila. Equal
shares.
2. The deed of donations stated that:
a. The donation is irrevocable.
b. Jarabini (granddaughter) and Emilio
(son) will continue to occupy the
portions they’re already occupying
c. The donation will also not affect any
other distribution of other proepties
belonging to the donors
d. Any of the spouse reserve the right,
ownership, administration of the
property donated and that the
donation will be effective upon the
death of the donors.
3. The will had no attestation and was witnessed
by 2 persons. However, the donees signified
their acceptance of the document on its face.
4. Guadalupe died. Leopoldo assigned his rights
to Asuncion (daughter). Leopoldo died.
5. Jarabini filed a petition for probate of the deed
of donation. Asuncion opposed this, showing
the deed of assignment
6. RTC – donation is inter vivos, thus leopoldo’s
assignment is null and void since he had
nothing to assign
7. CA – reversed said that mortis causa cannot be
collaterally attacked. The RTC was inccorect in
ruling because there is no proceeding for the
allowance of the donation inter vivos and the
document did not comply with the
requirements of a notarial will.
ISSUE: WON donation is mortis causa or inter vivos
INTER VIVOS
1. The main distinction between inter vivos and
mortis causa is the characteristic of
revocability. Where the donation can be
revoked in mortis causa, it cannot in inter
vivos. Moreover, it’s important to note that
irrevocability is incompatible with
conveyances mortis causa
2. Here, since it was expressly stated that “it is
our will that this donation mortis causa shall
be irrevocable and shall be respected by the
surviving spouse”  this shows the intent to
make the donation irrevocable. Thus, the
donation is inter vivos
3. The reservation of the donors of the "right,
ownership, possession, and administration of
the property" in the context of an irrevocable
donation simply means that the donors parted
with their naked title, maintaining only
beneficial ownership of the donated property
while they lived.
4. Moreover, An acceptance clause indicates that
the donation is inter vivos, since acceptance is
a requirement only for such kind of donations.
5. The moment that the donation inter vivos was
accepted the donation is already perfected.
Thus, Leopoldo’s subsequent assignment of
his rights is invalid.
12. Villanueva v Branoco
1. Petitioner Villanueva claims that he owns a
parcel of land he bought from Vere, who
bought it from Rodrigo. Villanueva said that he
declared the property for tax purposes after
acquiring it
2. Respondent sps. Branoco on the other hand
claims ownership over the land that they
purchased from a Rodriguez, who acquired it
from Rodrigo, the same one which was from
Vere.
3. The deed of donation stated that Rodrigo
assigns his right over the parcel of land in
Leyte in favor of his niece Rodriguez for the
love and affection he feels for her. And if the
donee dies before the donor, it will not revert
to the donor but will be inherited by the heirs
of Rodriguez
4. Sps. Branoco entered the property for tax
purposes
5. RTC – ruled in favor of Villanueva, treating the
deed as mortis causa, which was cancelled
upon Rodrigo’s subsequent sale to Vere
6. CA – reversed, said deed is a donation inter
vivos
ISSUE: WON the contract is a mortis causa or inter vivos.
Inter vivos
1. SC held that CA was right in saying that the
stipulation that if the donee dies before the
donor, the proeprty would be inherited by the
donor’s heirs mean that the property was
already part of the donee’s estate upon the
donee’s acceptance
a. Rodrigo waived title over the
property in case Rodriguez dies
before her
2. Only the beneficial title was reserved by
Rodrigo as seen in the condition that while she
 lives, half of the proceeds from the land is to
be delivered to her.
3. Moreover, the existence of the consideration
other than the donor’s death but in
consideration of the donor’s love and
affection, is proof of an inter vivos donation
4. SC held that dispositions bearing contradictory
stipulations should be interpreted holistically
to give effect to the donor’s intent. Indeed,
doubts on the nature of dispositions are
resolved to favor inter vivos transfers "to
avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the
property subject of the deed."
5. SC also held that Rodrigo’s post donation sale
of the property vested no title to Vere since
the transferred naked title over the property is
irrevocable, thus Rodrigo can’t revoke the
donation nor dispose it in favor of another.
13. Quijada v CA
1. Trinidad Quijada, together with her 2 sisters
and brother, executed a conditional deed of
donation in favor of the municipality of
Talacogon overa parcel of land.
a. This shall be used solely and
excluevely as part of the campus
proposed by the provincial high
school of the province
2. Subsequently, Trinidad verbally sild the lot to
Regalado Mondejar without the benefit of a
written deed of sale and evidence solely be
receipts.
3. The heirs of Quijada filed a complaint for
forcible entry against Regalado (dismissed for
failure to prosecute)
4. The Sangguniang Bayan of Talacogon enacted
a resolution reverting the land donated back
to Quijada since the proposed high school
didn’t materialize
5. In the meantime, Regalado sold portions of
the land to his co-defendants.
6. Thus, the heirs Quijada filed a complaint for
quieting of title, recovery of possession, and
ownership of the land.
a. Heirs allege that their mother never
sold the property to any person
except the donation made to the
municipality.
b. Moreover, at the time of the alleged
sale, the land was owned by the
municipality, thus the sale is void.
7. RTC – ruled in favor of heirs. CA – reversed,
ruled in favor of Regalado
ISSUE: WON the sale between Regalado and Trinidad
was valid, despite the conditional deed of donation in
favor of the municipality YES
1. SC held that the TC was right in claiming that
at the time that the sale was to Mondejar,
Trinidad Quijada couldn’t have sold the land
since it was already transferred to the
Municipality upon their acceptance of the
donation.
2. However, it must not be forgotten that the
donation has a condition that that the land is
to be used exclusively for the high school to be
built and if it doesn’t materialize, or if the
school be closed after, ownership would
automatically revert back to the owner
3. In this case, the municipality manifested
through a resolution that they couldn’t comply
with the condition of the building.
a. By this time, the ownership reverted
back to the owner (Quijada) as
provided in the deed
4. Quijada may have an inchoate interest in the
donated party during the time the ownership
has not reverted to her, and this interest may
be subject of a contract of sale
5. The law only requires that the seller has the
right to transfer ownership at the time the
thing sold is delivered. In effect, when
ownership over the land reverted back to the
heirs of QUIJADA, ownership, by operation of
law, is thereafter transferred to Mondejar and
those who claim their right from him.
14. Lagazo v CA
1. Catalina Jacob was awarded a portion of the
Moserrat Estate and constructed a house on
it. Shortly before she left for Canada, which
she is now a permanent resident of, she
executed an SPA in favor of her son-in-law
Eduardo Espaol authorizing him to execute all
documents necessary for the final adjuciation
of her claim as awardee of the lot.
2. But Espaol was not able to accomplish this, so
Catalina revoked the authority and executed
another power of attorney in favor of
petitioner Tito Lagazo (Catalina’s grandson)
3. She subsequently executed in Canada a Deed
of Donation over the lot in favor of Lagazo
4. Lagazo checked with the ROD and found out
that the property was in the delinquent list.
So, he paid the installments in arrears and the
remaining balance of the lot and declared the
property under Catalina’s name
5. Lagazo then sent a demand letter to Alfredo to
vacate the premises
a. Alfredo refused claiming ownership
of it based on a Deed of Absolute
Sale executed by Jacob in favor of
Espaol
b. And a deed of assignment over the
lot executed by Catalina in favor of
Espaol
c. And Espaol executed a deed of
assignment over the lot and
residential house in favor of Alfred
6. Tito Lagazo instituted a complaint to recover
possession over the property.
7. TC – ruled in favor of Lagazo; CA – reversed,
ruled in favor of Alfredo
 a. Lagazo claims that the donation is
onerous since he paid for the
installment in arrears and remaining
balance of the lot. And this, for him,
is already an indication of his
acceptance of the donation.
ISSUE: WON Tito or Alfredo has ownership over the
land. Alfredo, because the donation, being simple,
which requires that the acceptance be in a public
instrument)
1. SC held that the donation is simple because:
a. The payment made by Lagazo was
not imposed by the donor as a
condition for the donation
b. The deed explicitly stated that the
proeprties were free from all liens
and encumbrances or charges
c. Catalina didn’t have any intention to
burden or charge Tito as donee, the
payment made by Tito was his
voluntary actions
2. Nothing in the records show that the acts
were meant to be a burden
3. Moreover, the deed of donation doesn’t show
any indication that Tito accepted the gift, it
was only after CA rendered the decision
against him that he manifested an acceptance
of the lot. This is too late.
4. Granting arguendo that such acceptance may
still be admitted in evidence on appeal, there
is still need for proof that a formal notice of
such acceptance was received by the donor
and noted in both the deed of donation and
the separate instrument embodying the
acceptance
15. Danguilan v IAC
1. Apolinia Melad alleges that she had purchased
from Domingo Melad a farm and residential
lot, which she now alleges is being unlawfully
withheld by Felix Danguilan
2. Dangulian denies this and said that he was the
owner of the lot which he acquired from
Domingo in 1941
3. Apolonia presented a deed of sale (1943)
purportedly signed by Domingo and conveyed
to her for P80
a. She was the illegitimate daughter of
Domingo, who lived with her and
her mom until he died 1945
b. She moved out of the form a year
after Domingo died and the time
when Felix asked to cultivate the
land and stay there. She agreedon
the condition that he would deliver
part of his harvest
c. He delivered initially but eventually
stopped so she filed a complaint
against him.
4. Felix alleged on the other hand that he was
the husband of Domingo’s niece Isidra, who
Domingo took as his ward since they didn’t
have children
a. Felix and his wife Isidra lived with
Domingo in their house and helped
Domingo cultivate the land
b. Domingo signed a private
instrument giving the farm (1941)
and the residential lot (1943) on the
condition that Felix would bury
Domingo upon his death
5. TC – favored Felix; CA – reversed, because the
private instruments didn’t have any effect, it
should’ve been in a public instrument
ISSUE: WON the document should be in a public
instrument NO
1. SC held that the conveyance to Felix Dangulian
was an onerous donation since it the donation
had the condition that Felix should take care
of Domingo for the rest of his life and that he
takes care of the burial arrangement
a. Being an onerous donation, it
doesn’t come under Art. 749 which
requires it to be in a public
instrument
2. Felix did take care of Domingo and later
arranged his burial
a. Domingo died when he was almost
100 years old, which means that
Felix farmed the land by himself and
provided for Domingo and his wife
during the latter part of Domingo’s
life.
b. SC held that it can be assumed that
there was a fair exchange between
the donor and donee that made the
transaction onerous
3. Moreover, contrary to the assertion of
Apolinia that it should be considered a
gratuitous donation since there was no
equivalence in value between the lands
donated and services rendered, SC held that
there is no evidence to prove such assertion.
16. Republic v Guzman
1. Simeon Guzman (naturalized American
citizen), died and left with his son David
(natural-born american) and wife Helen
(American) an estate consisting of several
parcels of land.
2. Helen executed 2 quitclaim deeds assigning to
her son the undivided ½ interest on the land
3. David executed an SPA in favor of Atty, Abela
to sell or dispose of the lits
4. The solGEn filed before the RTC an petition
for escheat praying that the ½ share of David
in the land be forfeited to them alleging that
a. Only a Filipino can acquire private
lands in PH except in hereditary
 succession and if he was formerly a
natural-born Filipino who lost his PH
citizenship
b. David, being a US citizen can’t
acquire interest on the land through
quitclaims since they’re donations in
reality
i. Helen consented to the
execution of the
documents, dispositions
were made in public
documents, David
manifested his acceptance
of the donation, deeds
were for the benefit of
David, there was a
decreased in the assets of
Helen
5. David alleges that he acquired the property
not through donation. The quitclaims were not
donation but an intention to renounce the
share of Helen only. And even if it were a
donation, it didn’t take effect since he didn’t
indicate any acceotance
6. RTC held that Helen still owns the property
since the quitclaims had no legal effect
ISSUE: WON the quitclaims are donations NO, both
elements of animus donandi and acceptance are
missing (thus property cannot be forfeited to gov’t)
1. SC held that the quitclaims only declared her
intention to renounce her rights over the land.
2. The element of animus donandi (intention to
benefit the donee) was missing since what
Helen really wanted was to preserve the
Bulucan realty within Simeon’s bloodline
3. The quitclaims also lacked the acceptance
required by law to make the donation valid.
a. SPA merely acknowledged that
David owns the proeprty referred to
and that he authorizes his attorney
to sell it.
b. Acceptance must follow the
solemnities required by law, if it’s
not in the same document, then it
should be in a separate public
instrument
4. 2 quitclaims have no legal effect since Helen
can’t execute an instrument which has the
effect of revoking her previous acceptance of
her ½ share of the property
a. But this doesn’t make the property
in question res nullius to be forfeited
to the government
b. The land should revert back to
Helen, who, although an American,
has taken ownership over the
property through hereditary
succession
17. EugenionCagoan v Felix Cagoan
1. Eugenio and Felix are the sons of Gregorio
Cagaoan.
a. Gregorio executed a deed of
donation over 4 parcels of land to
Felix. He gifted Eugenio a parcel, but
this was actually one of the parcels
donated to Felix (Parcel No. 4)
2. Both of the deeds of gift are free from formal
defects and were both accepted by the donees
3. Eugenio possessed the land but failed to
register the donation with the register of
deeds
4. While the deed given to Felix was recorded
but he never had possession over the parcel
No. 4
5. Gregorio died.
6. Eugenio filed an action to be declared as the
owner of parcel 4. But Felix asked that he be
awarded possession of it.
ISSUE: WON Eugenio or Felix should be declared the
owner. EUGENIO
1. The rule on double sales apply:
a. The property goes to the vendee
(buyer) who first records his title in
the registry of property.
b. If the sale is not recorded by either
vendee (buyers), the property goes
to the one who first takes possession
of its in good, faith, and in the
absence of both record and
possession, to the one who present
oldest title, provided there is good
faith.
2. It clearly appears that Felix had full notice of
the plaintiff's claim to the land before he had
his deed of gift recorded with the register of
deeds. Eugenio having first taken possession in
good faith must therefore be considered to
have the better right to the land in question.