ROMARICO

G. VITUG v. CA and ROWENA FAUSTINO-CORONA • Vitug insists that the said funds are his exclusive property having
March 29, 1990 | Sarmiento, J. | Wills; defini<on acquired the same through a survivorship agreement executed
with his late wife and the bank. The agreement provides:
SUMMARY: Vitug filed a mo<on asking for authority from the probate “xxx all money now or hereaXer deposited by us or any or
court to sell certain shares of stock and real proper<es belonging to either of us with the BANK in our joint savings current
the estate of his late wife to cover advances he made to the estate. He account shall be the property of all or both of us and shall
withdrew the sums from savings account no. 35342038 of the Bank of be payable to and collec<ble or withdrawable by either or
America. Corona, executrix, opposed the mo<on to sell on the ground any of us during our life<me, and aXer the death of either
that the funds withdrawn from savings account No. 35342038 were or any of us shall belong to and be the sole property of the
conjugal partnership proper<es and part of the estate, and hence, survivor or survivors, and shall be payable to and collec<ble
there was allegedly no ground for reimbursement. Vitug insists that or withdrawable by such survivor or survivors.”
the said funds are his exclusive property having acquired the same
through a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the • TC: upheld the validity of the agreement and granted "the
bank. TC upheld the validity of the agreement and granted the mo<on mo<on to sell some of the estate of Dolores L. Vitug, the
to sell. CA held that the survivorship agreement cons<tutes a proceeds of which shall be used to pay the personal funds of
conveyance mor$s causa which did not comply with the formali<es of Romarico Vitug in the total sum of P667,731.66.”
a valid will as prescribed by Art. 805, NCC, and assuming that it is a
mere dona<on inter vivos, it is a prohibited dona<on under the • CA: the survivorship agreement cons<tutes a conveyance mor$s
provisions of Art. 87, FC. SC set aside the decision of the CA, holding causa which "did not comply with the formali<es of a valid will as
that the conveyance in ques<on is not one of mor$s causa, which prescribed by Art. 805 of the Civil Code," and secondly, assuming
should be embodied in a will. The bequest or device must pertain to that it is a mere dona<on inter vivos, it is a prohibited dona<on
the testator. In this case, the monies subject of savings account No. under the provisions of Art. 133 of the Civil Code (now Art. 87 of
35342038 were in the nature of conjugal funds. Neither is the the Family Code). The order of TC is set aside insofar as it granted
survivorship agreement a dona<on inter vivos because it was to take Vitug’s mo<on to sell certain proper<es of the estate for
effect aXer the death of one party. It is not a dona<on between the reimbursement of his alleged advances to the estate.
spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse's own
proper<es to the other. RULING: Decision of CA and its resolu<on are SET ASIDE.

DOCTRINE: A will has been defined as a personal, solemn, revocable WON the survivorship agreement is valid – YES
and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property
and rights and declares or complies with du<es to take effect aXer his • The conveyance in ques<on is not one of mor$s causa, which
death. should be embodied in a will. A will has been defined as "a
personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a capacitated
FACTS person disposes of his property and rights and declares or
• Romarico G. Vitug filed a mo<on asking for authority from the complies with du<es to take effect aXer his death."
probate court to sell certain shares of stock and real proper<es
belonging to the estate of his late wife, Dolores Luchangco Vitug, • The bequest or device must pertain to the testator. In this case,
to cover allegedly his advances to the estate in the sum of the monies subject of savings account No. 35342038 were in the
P667,731.66, plus interests, which he claimed were personal nature of conjugal funds.
funds.
• Rivera v. People's Bank and Trust Co., we rejected claims that a
• Findings of the CA: the alleged advances consisted of P58,147.40 survivorship agreement purports to deliver one party's separate
spent for the payment of estate tax, P518,834.27 as deficiency proper<es in favor of the other, but simply, their joint holdings:
estate tax, and P90,749.99 as "increment thereto." xxx In the absence, then, of clear proof to the contrary, we
must give full faith and credit to the cer<ficate of deposit
• Vitug: he withdrew the sums of P518,834.27 and P90,749.99 which recites in effect that the funds in ques<on belonged
from savings account No. 35342038 of the Bank of America, to Edgar Stephenson and Ana Rivera; that they were joint
Maka<, Metro Manila. (and several) owners thereof; and that either of them could
withdraw any part or the whole of said account during the
• Rowena Corona, executrix, opposed the mo<on to sell on the life<me of both, and the balance, if any, upon the death of
ground that the same funds withdrawn from savings account No. either, belonged to the survivor.
35342038 were conjugal partnership proper<es and part of the
estate, and hence, there was allegedly no ground for
reimbursement. She also sought his ouster (as co-special
administrator of the estate) for failure to include the sums in
ques<on for inventory and for "concealment of funds belonging
to the estate.”
• Macam v. Gatmaitan: This Court is of the opinion that Exhibit C is • However, the Court warns: But although the survivorship
an aleatory contract whereby, according to Art. 1790 of the Civil agreement is per se not contrary to law its opera<on or effect
Code, one of the par<es or both reciprocally bind themselves to may be viola<ve of the law. If it be shown in a given case that
give or do something as an equivalent for that which the other such agreement is a mere cloak to hide an inofficious dona<on,
party is to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which to transfer property in fraud of creditors, or to defeat the
is uncertain or will happen at an indeterminate <me. As already legi<me of a forced heir, it may be assailed and annulled upon
stated, Leonarda was the owner of the house and Juana of the such grounds. No such vice has been imputed and established
Buick automobile and most of the furniture. By virtue of Exhibit against the agreement involved in this case.
C, Juana would become the owner of the house in case Leonarda
died first, and Leonarda would become the owner of the • There is no demonstra<on here that the survivorship agreement
automobile and the furniture if Juana were to die first. In this had been executed for such unlawful purposes, or, as held by the
manner Leonarda and Juana reciprocally assigned their respondent court, in order to frustrate our laws on wills,
respec<ve property to one another condi<oned upon who might dona<ons, and conjugal partnership.
die first, the <me of death determining the event upon which the
acquisi<on of such right by the one or the other depended. • Mrs. Vitug having predeceased her husband, the laler has
acquired upon her death a vested right over the amounts under
• There is no showing that the funds exclusively belonged to one savings account No. 35342038 of the Bank of America. Insofar as
party, and hence it must be presumed to be conjugal, having the CA ordered their inclusion in the inventory of assets leX by
been acquired during the existence of the marital rela<ons. Mrs. Vitug, we hold that the CA was in error. Being the separate
property of pe<<oner, it forms no more part of the estate of the
• Neither is the survivorship agreement a dona<on inter vivos deceased.
because it was to take effect aXer the death of one party. It is not
a dona<on between the spouses because it involved no NOTES
conveyance of a spouse's own proper<es to the other.
ArHcle 805, NCC. Every will, other than a holographic will, must be
• The agreement involves no modifica<on pe<<on of the conjugal subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or by the
partnership, by "mere s<pula<on" and that it is no "cloak" to testator's name wrilen by some other person in his presence, and by
circumvent the law on conjugal property rela<ons. The spouses his express direc<on, and alested and subscribed by three or more
are not prohibited by law to invest conjugal property, by way of a credible witnesses in the presence of the testator and of one another.
joint and several bank account ("and/or" account). When the The testator or the person requested by him to write his name and
spouses Vitug opened savings account No. 35342038, they the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as aforesaid,
merely put what righkully belonged to them in a moneymaking each and every page thereof, except the last, on the leX margin, and
venture. They did not dispose of it in favor of the other, which all the pages shall be numbered correla<vely in lelers placed on the
would have arguably been sanc<onable as a prohibited dona<on. upper part of each page.
Since the funds were conjugal, it cannot be said that one spouse
could have pressured the other in placing his or her deposits in The alesta<on shall state the number of pages used upon which the
the money pool. will is wrilen, and the fact that the testator signed the will and every
page thereof, or caused some other person to write his name, under
• The validity of the contract seems debatable by reason of its his express direc<on, in the presence of the instrumental witnesses,
"survivortakeall" feature, but in reality, that contract imposed a and that the laler witnessed and signed the will and all the pages
mere obliga<on with a term, the term being death. Such thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
agreements are permiled under Art. 2010 of the Civil Code.
If the alesta<on clause is in a language not known to the witnesses, it
• The fulfillment of an aleatory contract depends on either the shall be interpreted to them.
happening of an event which is (1) "uncertain," (2) "which is to
occur at an indeterminate <me." A survivorship agreement, the Art. 87, FC. Every dona<on or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or
sale of a sweepstake <cket, a transac<on s<pula<ng on the value indirect, between the spouses during the marriage shall be void,
of currency, and insurance have been held to fall under the first except moderate giXs which the spouses may give each other on the
category, while a contract for life annuity or pension under Art. occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibi<on shall also apply to
2021, et seq., has been categorized under the second. In either persons living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage.
case, the element of risk is present. In the case at bar, the risk
was the death of one party and survivorship of the other. Art. 2010, NCC. By an aleatory contract, one of the par<es or both
reciprocally bind themselves to give or to do something in
considera<on of what the other shall give or do upon the happening
of an event which is uncertain, or which is to occur at an
indeterminate <me.