DANILO ALUAD, et al. vs.

ZENAIDO ALUAD
G.R. No. 176943; 17 October 2008
Carpio Morales, J.

DOCTRINE: The Deed of Donation which is one of mortis causa, not having followed the
formalities of a will, is void and transmitted no right to petitioners’ mother. Even
assuming arguendo that the formalities were observed, since it was not probated, no right
to the subject lots was transmitted to the petitioners’ mother.

FACTS:
Petitioners’ mother, Maria Aluad (Maria), and respondent Zenaido Aluad (Zenaido) were
raised by the childless spouses Matilde Aluad (Matilde) and Crispin Aluad (Crispin).
Crispin was the owner of six lots (Lots 674, 675, 676, 677, 680, 682) located in Pilar
Cadastre, Capiz. After his death, Matilde adjudicated the lots to herself and thereafter, she
executed a Deed of Donation of Real Property Inter Vivos in favor of Maria, covering all six
lots.
The Deed provided that it shall become effective upon the death of the Donor
(Matilde), but in the event that the Donee (Maria) should die before the Donor, the
present donation shall be deemed rescinded. Provided, however, that anytime during the
lifetime of the Donor or anyone of them who should survive, they could use, encumber or
even dispose of any or even all of the parcels of the land.

Matilde sold Lot 676 to Zenaido. Subsequently, Matilde executed a last will and testament
devising Lots 675, 677, 680 and 682 to Maria, and her “remaining properties” including
Lot. 674 to Zenaido. Matilde died on 14 January 1992, while Maria died on September 24
of the same year.

Thereafter, Maria’s heirs (herein petitioners) filed before the RTC a complaint for
declaration and recovery of ownership and possession of the two lots (Lots 674 and 676)
conveyed and donated to Zenaido, alleging that no rights have been transmitted to the
latter because such lots have been previously alienated to them to Maria via the Deed of
Donation.

The lower court decided in favor of the petitioners however, CA reversed said decision
upon appeal of Zenaido which held that the Deed of Donation was actually a donation
mortis causa, not inter vivos and as such it had to, but did not comply with the formalities
of a will. Due to the denial of the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, the present
Petition for Review has been filed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Lots 674 and 676 were validly conveyed to Zenaido Aluad.

HELD:
YES. Lots 674 and 676 were validly conveyed to Zenaido Aluad.
The Court finds the donation to Maria Aluad (petitioners’ mother) one of mortis causa, it
having the following characteristics:

1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the

transferor, or what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain
the ownership (full or naked) and control of the property while alive;

2. That before the death of the transferor, the transfer should be revocable , by the
transferor at will, ad nutum, but revocability may be provided for indirectly by
means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed; and

3. That the transfer should be void of the transferor should survive the transferee .

The phrase in the earlier-qouted Deed of Donation “to become effective upon the death of
the DONOR” admits of no other interpretation than to mean that Matilde did not intend to
transfer the ownership of the six lots to petitioner’s mother during the former’s lifetime.
Further the statement, “anytime during the lifetime of the DONOR or anyone of them who
should survive, they could use, encumber or even dispose of any or even all the parcels of
land herein donated,” means that Matilde retained ownership of the lots and reserved in
her the right to dispose them. For the right to dispose of a thing without other limitations
than those established by law is an attribute of ownership.

The donation being then mortis causa, the formalities of a will should have been observed
but they were not, as it was witnessed by only two, not three or more witnesses following
Article 805 of the Civil Code. Further, the witnesses did not even sign the attestation
clause, the execution of which clause is a requirement separate from the subscription of
the will and the affixing of signatures on the left-hand margins of the pages of the will. As
such, it is void and transmitted no right to petitioners’ mother.

But even assuming arguendo that the formalities were observed, since it was not
probated, no right to the two lots was transmitted to Maria. Matilde thus validly disposed
Lot 674 to Zenaido by her last will and testament, subject to the qualification that her will
must be probated. With respect to the conveyed lot (Lot 676), the same had been validly
sold by Matilde to Zenaido.