1. A donated a parcel of land to B, an illegitimate daughter of his deceased wife 2. Mr. X donated a parcel of land to Miss Y.
of land to Miss Y. The deed of donation is entitled
before their marriage. In the deed of donation, A expressly stipulated that B
may immediately take possession of the land and derive fruits therefrom with
a further condition not to sell or transfer the land for twenty years. After A’s
death, B sold the land to C. B died within the year after the sale. D, a sole heir
of B realized that the property had already been transferred in contravention
of the conditions of the will. D then filed an action for annulment of sale on
the ground of the violation of the conditions in the Deed. C filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that D, being only an heir to B, does not have to the
legal capacity to sue. Assume you are the judge, how will you rule on the
Motion to Dismiss?
Answer:
If I were the judge, I will sustain the contentions of C and will dismiss the case. Based
on Article 764 of the Civil Code, the right to revoke may be transmitted to the heirs of the
donor and may be exercised against the heirs of the donee, and the action prescribes four
years after the violation of the condition.
Likewise in the case of Garrido vs. CA (G.R. No. 101262, September 14, 1994),
the Court held that the heir of the donee has no personality to question the violation of the
restriction because they are not heirs of the donor. It is the donor or his heirs who has the
right to impugn the validity of the transaction affecting the donated property.
In the instant case, it is A’s heirs who have the right to impugn the validity of the
transaction affecting the donated property. D, heir of B has no legal personality to question
the violation of the condition imposed by A.
Hence, I will sustain the motion to dismiss filed by C.
“Donation Inter Vivos”, notarized and Ms. Y accepted the donation is the
same instrument. The deed likewise states that Ms. Y can immediately take
possession and enjoy the fruits fully. However, Ms. Y cannot dispose of it
especially while Mr. X is alive, as the deed provides for a condition that only
he (Mr. X) can dispose of the property in his lifetime. Also, it further states
that Ms. Y can only register the donation after Mr. X’s death. Subsequently,
Mr. X died and his widow, filed an action to annul the donation contending
that the donation is a mortis causa and not inter-vivos. Assume, you are the
judge, how will you decide.
Answer:
If I were the Judge, I will decide in favor of the widow of Mr. X and hold that the
donation is mortis causa. The essential distinction between a donation mortis causa and
inter-vivos is REVOCABILITY.
If the donor reserved his right to dispose the donated property in his lifetime
and therefore the right to dispose, which is an essential attribute of ownership is still with
the donor, then the donation is mortis causa. This is so because the right to dispose the
property means that he can REVOKE the donation anytime he wants; hence the right
of disposition rest with the donor. (Puig vs. Pengflorida, 15 SCRA 276)
That the right was not exercised is immaterial; its reservation was an implied
recognition of the donor's power to nullify the donation anytime he wished to do so.
Consequently, it should have been embodied in a last will and testament. The suit for
nullity will thus prosper.
PROPERTY_DONATION
 3. Ms. D. executed a Deed of Donation to the unborn child of Mrs. P. in the
amount of P 1 million. Unfortunately the child after birth survived for less
than 24 hours. Mrs. P. now wants to claim as heir to her unborn child. Ms. D.
now contends that the deed of donation did not become effective. Decide.
Answer:
As a rule, the donation is valid and binding, being an act favorable to the unborn
child.
This is however subject to further qualification. Thus, if the baby had an intra-
uterine life of at least seven months and provided there was due acceptance of the donation
by the proper person representing said child, the death of the child notwithstanding, the
donation is valid. Hence Mrs. P may now claim the P1 million being an heir of her baby.
However, if the child had less than seven months of intra-uterine life, it is not
deemed born since it died less than 24 hours following its delivery, in which ease the
donation never became effective since the donee never became a person, birth being
determinative of personality. If the situation falls under this case, Mrs. P. cannot claim the
donation since the donation was ineffectual.
4. Fraternity member, Mr. A. donated a parcel of land, to their fraternity “Tau
Lambda Wee” with the condition that the fraternity will construct a
fraternity house therein and name the same in his honor. The donation was
notarized and the acceptance was in the same instrument. The Deed of
Donation was not registered with the Registry of Deeds. However, a purely
commercial center was constructed therein. Disappointed, Mr. A revoked the
donation and demanded to surrender the premises immediately. Under the
circumstances, can Mr. A recover possession of the property?
Answer: It is submitted that Mr. A can recover possession of the property by revoking the
deed of donation especially so since the Deed of Donation was not registered; hence the
title remains with Mr. A. While the donation was valid with the execution of the Deed of
Donation, the resolutory condition thereof was not fulfilled and in fact, even violated.
As discussed in the case of Central Philippine University vs. CA, under Article
1191 of the New Civil Code, the power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones,
in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
Hence Tau Lamdha Wee, contrary to the stipulation laid down in the Deed of
Donation, has violated the condition set in the Deed of Donation, entitling the donor or his
heirs to rescind or revoke the Deed of Donation.
5. In 1950, Dr. Alba donated a parcel of land to Central University on condition
that the latter must establish a medical college on the land to be named after
him. In the year 2000, the heirs of Dr. Alba filed an action to annul the
donation and for the reconveyance of the property donated to them for the
failure, after 50 years, of the University to establish on the property a medical
school named after their father. The University opposed the action on the
ground of prescription and also because it had not used the property for
some purpose other than that stated in the donation. Should the opposition of
the University to the action of Dr. Alba’s heirs be sustained? Explain.
Answer: The facts of the case are on floors with the case of Central Philippine University
vs. CA whereby the Supreme Court ruled for the rescission of the donation. From the facts
of the case, since more than 50 years had already lapsed for Central University to comply
with the condition imposed on the Deed of Donation to build a medical college in the name
of Dr. Alba, and having failed so, the heirs are now entitled to have the donation rescinded.
Under Art. 1191 of the Civil Code, when one of the obligors cannot comply with
what is incumbent upon him, the obligee may seek rescission and the court shall decree the
same unless there is just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. In this case, 50 years of
inaction is not a just cause to determine the period of compliance. Giving another chance
to Central University to ask the court to fix the period would be a mere technicality and
formality and would serve no purpose than to delay or lead to unnecessary and expensive
multiplication of suits. This being the case, there is no more obstacle for the court to decree
the rescission claimed.
6. In year 2010, Mr. S donated a parcel of land to Mr. P. who personally handed
to him the deed of donation in a document duly acknowledged before the
notary public. Mr. P. received it. A few days after, Mr. S. rode a plane on his
way to Hongkong. Unfortunately, the plane crashed and Mr. S. died. Upon
learning of Mr. S’s death, Mr. P. executed a deed acknowledging before the
notary public that he accepts the donation to him by Mr. S. Has the donation
become operative? Explain your answer.
Answer: No, the donation has not become operative.Under Article 734 of the same Code,
the donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the
donee.
However, in the instant case, Mr. P manifested his acceptance upon learning of
Mr. S’s death. Hence, there is no way Mr. S could have known Mr. P’s acceptance in view
of the untimely demise of the former.
Hence, the donation is ineffectual.
PROPERTY_DONATION