JOSE CARINO V.

FERNANDO ABAYA

Sisters Petrona and Dorotea Gray, both in their 70s and having no legitimate heirs, executed a document
wherein they distributed their properties to their relatives, one of which is Jose Carino, the petitioner.
Miguel Carino, the father of Jose, was designated as the one to administer or deliver the properties
referred to in the document. However, he died before Dorotea Gray did.

Dorotea died and after 7 years from her death, Jose commenced intestate proceedings where he prayed
that he be appointed as administrator of estate left by Gray sisters.

Subsequently, he filed amended petition that some properties be declared trust properties and that he
be appointed trustee of the same.

Later, Fernando Abaya, the respondent and first cousin of Gray sisters, interposed an opposition to
amended petition alleging that the document is null and void.

Jose contended that the document is a donation inter vivos creating at the same time a trust. Fernando,
on the other hand, alleged that it is a will.

CFI: Some of the properties are trust properties destined by trustors for religious and pious purposes.
Some are invalid trust for the reason that the said properties did not belong to said trustors and some
were destined for a trust but the purpose of which is uncertain and that while designation of Jose is
invalid, court may still appoint one to act as such.

CA: Document was neither a donation inter vivos nor a will. It is a void donation mortis causa; void
because it was not executed with the formalities of a will. CA remanded case to court of origin for
appointment of administrator.

Issue: Whether the document is a donation mortis causa?

Ruling: Document is a DONATION MORTIS CAUSA

 7th clause of document recited that “ we the sisters do hereby order that all these properties
shall be given those to whom they have been assigned by virtue of this instrument at the
expiration of 30 days after the death of the last one to die between us,” considered in
conjunction with the fact that the grantors employed the terms “there shall be given to,” “shall
administer,” and “shall be administered,” which have reference to the future, clearly brings
forth the intention on the part of Gray sisters to make the distribution of their estate effective
after their death. The 7th clause, being without limitation, applies to properties intended to be
distributed and to the properties merely to be administered by Miguel Carino
 In the 9th clause, the phrase “together with those who had been mentioned to inherit from us”
supplies a cogent reason for concluding that the grant made was meant to take effect after the
death of the grantors, for the word “inherit,” as used here, implies acquisition of property by
the heirs after the death of the Gray sisters.
  Donations which are to become effective upon the death of the donor partake the nature of
disposals of property by will and shall be governed by the rules established for testamentary
successions. Accordingly, said donations can only be made with the formalities of a will.
 Since the document was not executed in conformity with prescribed formalities (lack of
attestation clause and marginal signatures), Court is constrained to hold that said document
cannot be accorded any force and effect (in short, VOID).
 CA found that Fernando Abaya is the nearest relative of Gray sisters. So, he has an interest in
any property of his deceased cousins, in that, in default of testamentary heirs, he is entitled to
inherit from them to the exclusion of more remote relatives.

Additional:

 On petitioner’s argument that respondent’s action has already prescribed since it was filed 14
years after execution of document, Court said that it was just raised for the first time in their MR
to CA’s decision, so it was not entertained.
 On argument that Abaya waived his right over properties, CA found that Abaya in is actual
possession of the properties, and was, at least at the time the original petition of Jose was filed,
the latter having alleged it in said petition.