Gestopa v.

CA
Facts:
Spouses Danlag own six parcels of land. They executed a donation mortis causa for the four
parcels in favor of respondent Mercedes Danlag-Pilapil, reserving donor's rights to amend,
cancel, or revoke the donation and to sell or encumber such properties. Years later, they
executed an inter vivos donation to the six parcels of land in favor of respondents, reserving
their rights to the fruits of the land during their lifetime and for prohibiting the donee to sell
or dispose the properties donated. Subsequently, the spouses sold 2 parcels to herein
petitioners, spouses Gestopa, and eventually revoking the donation. Respondent filed a
petition to quiet title, stating that she had already become the owner of the parcels of land.
Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners, but CA reversed.
Issue:
Whether the (second) donation was inter vivos or mortis causa
Ruling:
It was donation inter vivos. The spouses were aware of the difference between the two
donations, and that they needed to execute another deed of donation inter vivos, since it
has a different application to a donation mortis causa. Also, the court stated four reasons to
the matter: (1) that the spouses donated the parcels of land out of love and affection, a clear
indication of a donation inter vivos; (2) the reservation of a lifetime usufruct; (3) reservation
of sufficient properties for maintenance that shows the intention to part with their six lot;
and (4) respondent's acceptance, contained in the deed of donation. Once a deed of
donation has been accepted, it cannot be revoked, except for officiousness or ingratitude,
which the spouses failed to invoke.