DONATIONS CASES  Castillo vs Castillo

FACTS: A donation of land was given so that the donee would

 Republic vs Guzman
Ruling: No, there was no donation inter vivos.
Not all the elements of a donation of an immovable property
are present in this case. There are three (3) essential elements of a
donation:
1. The reduction of the patrimony of the donor;
2. The increase in the patrimony of the donee;
3. The intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi.
(missing element)
Likewise, the deeds of quitclaim executed by Helen may have
been in the nature of a public document but lacks the essential
element of acceptance in the proper form required by law to be a
valid donation. The acceptance must be in the same deed of
donation, or in a separate public document where the donor must
be notified in an authentic form to be noted in both instruments.
defray the cost of the donor's subsistence and future burial and "if
perchance anything should remain from the price of the land, the
surplus of the said expenses is granted to him by me": What kind
of a donation is this from the viewpoint of cause?
HELD: This is a remuneratory or compensatory donation (of the
second kind) insofar as the burden (which is inferior to the value of
the land) is concerned.
 Quijada v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 695
Ruling: When the donation was accepted, the ownership was
transferred to the school, only subject to a condition that a school
must be constructed over the lot. Since ownership was transferred,
and failure to fulfill the condition reverts the ownership back to the
donor.
  Laureta v. Mata, 44 Phil. 668 now applies to donations between persons living together as
husband and wife without a valid marriage, for otherwise, the
Ruling: A donation is perfected as soon as the donor has knowledge
condition of those who incurred guilt would turn out to be better
that it has been accepted by the donee.
than those in legal union.
It appears from the instrument itself that Ester Magno accepted
 Heirs of Salud Dizon Salamat vs. Tamayo (298 SCRA 313
the donation on behalf of the son, and the acceptance is
(1998)
incorporated in the body of the instrument and made a part of it,
and is signed by the donor and acceptor in the presence of Ruling: No, the donation to Natividad is not valid.
witnesses and the instrument as a whole is legally acknowledge
Art. 749 of the Civil Code provides “In order that the
before a notary public.
donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public
 Araneta v. Perez L-18872, July 15, 1966 document, specifying therein the property donated and the value
of the charges which the done must satisfy.”
Held: Yes, for Art. 736 which states that “guardians and trustees
cannot donate the property entrusted to them” applies only to “It is clear from Article 749 that a transfer of real property from one
simple donations or gifts of pure benefi cence. In the instant case, person to another cannot take effect as a donation unless
the donation was made precisely in the interest of the estate trust embodied in a public document.”
or the trust beneficiaries.
The alleged donation was done orally and not executed in a
 Agapay v. Palang 85 SCAD 145 (1997) public document. Moreover, the document which was presented
by respondent in support of her claim that her father donated the
Held: The transaction was properly a donation made by Miguel to
subject parcel of land to her was a mere private document of
Erlinda, but one which was clearly void and inexistent by Art. 739
conformity which was executed by her elder brother, Eduardo in
express provision of law because it was between persons guilty of
1956. It should be pointed out that the brothers Eduardo and
adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation, under Art. 737
Gaudencio had already ceded their herediatary interests to
of the Civil Code. Moreover, Art. 87 of the Family Code expressly
petitioner Salud Dizon Salamat even before 1950.
provides that the prohibition against donations between spouses
  Calanasan vs. Spouses Virgilio Dolorito and Evelyn c.
Dolorito
Ruling: The petitioner may not dissolve the donation.
Article 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be
governed by the rules on contracts, and remuneratory donations
by the provisions of the present Title as regards that portion which
exceeds the value of the burden imposed."
The SC agree with the CA that since the donation imposed on
the donee the burden of redeeming the property for P15,000.00,
the donation was onerous. As an endowment for a valuable
consideration, it partakes of the nature of an ordinary contract;
hence, the rules of contract will govern and Article 765 of the NCC
finds no application with respect to the onerous portion of the
donation.
Insofar as the value of the land exceeds the redemption price
paid for by the donee, a donation exists, and the legal provisions
on donation apply. Nevertheless, despite the applicability of the
provisions on donation to the gratuitous portion, the petitioner
may not dissolve the donation. She has no factual and legal basis
for its revocation, as aptly established by the RTC. First, the
ungrateful acts were committed not by the donee; it was her
husband who committed them. Second, the ungrateful acts were
perpetrated not against the donor; it was the petitioner's sister
who received the alleged ill treatments. These twin considerations
place the case out of the purview of Article 765 of the New Civil
Code.