Reyes v.

Mosqueda
*This is a compilation of multiple cases which were consolidate by this court for final judgement

Facts:

- In 1976, 3 years after the death of Dr. Pascual, his sister, Ursula Pascual filed for a motion to
exclude some properties out of his inventory by virtue of a “donation mortis causa” in her favor
- Included in the exclusion requested by Ursula was a lot that was allegedly donated inter vivos by
Dr. Pascual to Ofelia Parungao
- While Ofelia was trying to have the donation registered and excluded from the inventory, Ursula
sold the lots to the Reyes Siblings.
- In 1978, Benjamin Reyes filed for the declaration of the TCT issued to Ofelia as null and void to
which Ofelia denies
- The CFI ruled that the donation mortis causa made to Ursula was actually Inter Vivos
- The CFI ruled against Ofelia, to which Ofelia appealed to the IAC who also upheld the CFI’s ruling
- Hence this recourse

Issue:

1. WON the probate court has jurisdiction to exclude properties? [IRRELEVANT] (*This was filed by
the official administrator of the estate of Dr. Pascual.
2. WON the donation mortis causa for Ursula was actually a donation inter vivos

Held:

1. YES, it is well settled in jurisprudence that the probate courts have the jurisdiction to exclude
properties from estates in favor of claimants
2. It is a DONATION INTER VIVOS
- The SC cited jurisprudence that in order for a donation to constitute a donation mortis
causa, it should have the following circumstances present:

(1) Convey 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 (fun or naked) and control of the property while alive
(Vidal v. Posadas, 58 Phil., 108; Guzman v. Ibea 67 Phil., 633);

(2) That before his death, 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 (Bautista v.
Sabiniano, G.R. No. L- 4326, November 18, 1952);

(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the
transferee.

*In this instance the elements provided were not present. The document mentioned in words
that the transfer was given as thanks for the service done, as well as explicitly saying that the donor had
left enough properties to sustain him in life. The transfer was immediate and independent of the death
of the donor, and therefore Ursula’s title should be upheld.

Decision:

- All petitions DENIED, TCT of Ofelia remains void