You are on page 1of 3

1. Maglasang v.

Cabatingan transfers mortis causa may also be made for the

Facts – same reason.
 On February 17, 1992, Conchita
Cabatingan executed in favor of her As the donation is in the nature of a mortis
brother, petitioner Nicolas Cabatingan, a causa disposition, the formalities of a will should
"Deed of Conditional of Donation Inter have been complied with under Article 728 CC,
Vivos for House and Lot" (½) portion of otherwise, the donation is void.
Conchitas house and lot at Liloan, Cebu One of the decisive characteristics of a donation
 (4) other deeds of donation were mortis causa is that the transfer should be
subsequently executed by Conchita on considered void if the donor should survive the
January 14, 1995, as follows: done.
1. Pet Estela C. Maglasang, two (2)
parcels of land (Cogon, Cebu 307 Art 805 and 806 (see codal)
sqm and portion of land in Masbate
50,232 sqm); The deeds although acknowledged before a
2. Pet Nicolas Cabatingan, a portion notary public of onor and donee, were not
land in Masbate (80,000 sqm); executed in the manner provided by Art 805 and
3. Pet Merly S. Cabatingan, a portion of 806 CC. Thus, the trial court did not commit
Masbate property (80,000 sqm) any reversible error in declaring the subject
 Same provision in Deed of donation that deeds of donation null and void.
- effective upon the death of the
DONOR; if DONEE should die before the 2. Villanueva v. Sps Branoco
DONOR, donation shall be deemed Facts –
automatically rescinded  Pet represented by his heirs, sued resps
 On May 9, 1995, Conchita Cabatingan spouses Branoco (respondents), in the
died RTC to recover a 3,492 square-meter
 Upon learning of the existence the parcel of land
donations, resps filed with RTC action for  Petitioner claimed ownership over the
Annulment Property through purchase in July 1971
 Respondents allege, that petitioners, from Casimiro Vere who, bought from
through machinations; taking advantage Alvegia Rodrigo in August 1970.
of Conchita Cabatingan's fragile Petitioner declared the Property in his
condition, caused the execution of the name for tax purposes soon after
deeds of donation, and, that the acquiring it.
documents are void for failing to comply  Resps similarly claimed ownership over
with the provisions of CC regarding the Property through purchase in July
formalities of wills and testaments, 1983 from Eufracia Rodriguez to whom
considering that these are donations Rodrigo donated the Property in May
mortis causa. 1965.
 RTC judgment in favor of respondents; Provisions of Donation as follows:
 - 3,492 sqm; now in possession of
Issue – 1962 in the concept of an owner, but
WON the donations made by the late Conchita the Deed of Donation or that
Cabatingan are donations inter vivos or mortis ownership be vested on her upon
causa my(donor’s) demise
- if the Donee predeceases me(donor),
Held – land will not be reverted to the
In a donation mortis causa, the right of Donor, but will be inherited by the
disposition is not transferred to the donee while heirs of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ
the donor is still alive.  Respondents entered the Property in
1983 and paid taxes afterwards
Whether a donation is one of mortis causa,  trial court ruled for petitioner; CA
characteristics must be taken into account: reversed(Deed as donation inter vivos)
1. Conveys no title or ownership to the  In this petition, petitioner seeks the
transferee before the death of the transferor or reinstatement of the trial court’s ruling.
transferor should retain the ownership (full or Pets claim ownership over the Property
naked) and control of the property while alive; through acquisitive prescription, having
2. Before his death, transfer should be allegedly occupied it for more than 10
revocable by the transferor at will; years.
3. Transfer should be void if the transferor
(donor) should survive the transferee. Issue –
Whether the contract between the parties’
In the present case, the nature of the donations predecessors-in-interest, Rodrigo and
as mortis causa; the phrase "to become Rodriguez, was a donation or a devise.
effective upon the death of the DONOR" admits
of no other interpretation but that Cabatingan Held –
did not intend to transfer the ownership of the SC affirm the CA.
properties to petitioners during her lifetime. Naked Title Passed from Rodrigo to Rodriguez
Under a Perfected Donation:
That the donations were made "in consideration It is immediately apparent that Rodrigo passed
of the love and affection of the donor" does not naked title to Rodriguez under a perfected
qualify the donations as inter vivos because donation inter vivos. First. Rodrigo stipulated
that "if the herein Donee predeceases me, the
[Property] will not be reverted to the Donor, but 3. Insular Life v. Ebrado
will be inherited by the heirs of x x x Facts –
Rodriguez," signaling the irrevocability of the  Buenaventura was issued a life insurance
passage of title to Rodriguez’s estate, waiving with a rider for accidental death; named
Rodrigo’s right to reclaim title. This transfer of Carponia (common law wife as
title was perfected the moment Rodrigo learned beneficiary)
of Rodriguez’s acceptance of the disposition. As  He died in an accident; both Carponia
only donations inter vivos need acceptance by and legal wife filed a claim
the recipient.  RTC held that carponia is disqualified;

Second. What Rodrigo reserved for herself was Issue –
only the beneficial title to the Property, evident WON a common-law wife named as beneficiary
from Rodriguez’s undertaking to "give one [half] in the life insurance policy of a legally married
x x x of the produce of the land to Apoy Alve man claim the proceeds in case of his death.
during her lifetime." Thus, the Deed’s stipulation
that "the ownership shall be vested on Held –
[Rodriguez] upon my demise," taking into The general rules of civil law should be applied
account the non-reversion clause, could only to resolve this void in the Insurance Law.
refer to Rodrigo’s beneficial title.
Article 2012 of the same Code, "any person who
Dispositions bearing contradictory stipulations is forbidden from receiving any donation under
are interpreted wholistically, to give effect to the Article 739 cannot be named beneficiary of a life
donor’s intent. insurance policy by the person who cannot
The principle that "the designation of the make a donation to him.
donation as mortis causa, or a provision in the
deed to the effect that the donation is ‘to take Article 739 CC provides:
effect at the death of the donor’ are not The following donations shall be void:
controlling criteria [but] x x x are to be 1. Those made between persons who were
construed together with the rest of the guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of
instrument, in order to give effect to the real donation;
intent of the transferor. 2. Those made between persons found guilty of
the same criminal offense, in consideration
Accordingly, having irrevocably transferred thereof;
naked title over the Property to Rodriguez in 3. Those made to a public officer or his wife,
1965, Rodrigo "cannot afterwards revoke the descendants or ascendants by reason of his
donation nor dispose of the said property in office.
favor of another." Thus, Rodrigo’s post-donation In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for
sale of the Property vested no title to Vere. As declaration of nullity may be brought by the
Vere’s successor-in-interest, petitioner acquired spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of
no better right than him. On the other hand, the donee may be proved by preponderance of
respondents bought the Property from evidence in the same action.
Rodriguez, thus acquiring the latter’s title which
they may invoke against all adverse claimants, In essence, a life insurance policy is no different
including petitioner. from a civil donation insofar as the beneficiary is
concerned. Both are founded upon the same
Petitioner Acquired No Title Over the Property: consideration: liberality. A beneficiary is like a
The ten year ordinary prescriptive period to donee, because from the premiums of the policy
acquire title through possession of real property which the insured pays out of liberality, the
in the concept of an owner requires beneficiary will receive the proceeds or profits of
uninterrupted possession coupled with just title said insurance. Article 739 CC should equally
and good faith. operate in life insurance contracts.
There is just title when the adverse claimant The mandate of Article 2012 cannot be laid
came into possession of the property through aside: any person who cannot receive a
one of the modes recognized by law for the donation cannot be named as beneficiary in the
acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but life insurance policy of the person who cannot
the grantor was not the owner or could not make the donation. The disabilities attached to
transmit any right. marriage should likewise attach to concubinage.
Good faith consists in the reasonable belief that
the person from whom the possessor received A conviction for adultery or concubinage is not
the thing was the owner thereof, and could exacted before the disabilities mentioned in
transmit his ownership. Article 739 may effectuate.

Although Vere and petitioner arguably had just Judgment affirmed; the proceeds of the policy
title having successively acquired the Property are hereby held payable to the estate of the
through sale, neither was a good faith deceased insured.
possessor. Rodrigo disclosed in the Deed,
Rodriguez already occupied and possessed the 4. Dolar v. Brgy Lublub
Property "in the concept of an owner" since 21 Facts –
May 1962.  Petitioner and Serafin Jaranilla were co-
When Vere bought the Property from Rodrigo in owners of land; 4.6 ha, identified as Lot
1970, Rodriguez was in possession of the No. 1 in Brgy. Lublub
Property, a fact that prevented Vere from being  Both donated Lot No. 1 to respt
a buyer in good faith. Barangay Lublub with conditions.
5. Quilala v. Alcantara
Facts –
 Catalina Quilala executed a "Donation of
Real Property Inter Vivos" in favor of
Violeta Quilala of land; 94 sqm
 The deed of donation was registered
with RoD, TCT No. 143015 was issued in
the name of Violeta Quilala.
 Catalina and Violeta Quilala died
 Petitioner Ricky Quilala alleges that he is
the surviving son of Violeta Quilala
 Resps, claiming to be Catalina's only
surviving relatives within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity, executed a
deed of extrajudicial settlement of
estate, dividing and adjudicating unto
themselves the above-described
 1984, resps instituted an action for the
declaration of nullity of the donation
inter vivos
 RTC declared the donation as null and
void; CA affirmed with modification; MR
– denied; hence this petition for review

Issue –
WON donation executed by Catalina in favour of
Violeta is valid.

Held –
Under Article 749 of the Civil Code, the donation
of an immovable must be made in a public
instrument in order to be valid, specifying
therein the property donated and the value of
the charges which the donee must satisfy. As a
mode of acquiring ownership, donation results in
an effective transfer of title over the property
from the donor to the donee, and is perfected
from the moment the donor knows of the
acceptance by the donee, provided the donee is
not disqualified or prohibited by law from
accepting the donation. Once the donation is
accepted, it is generally considered irrevocable,
and the donee becomes the absolute owner of
the property. The acceptance, to be valid, must
be made during the lifetime of both the donor
and the donee. It may be made in the same
deed or in a separate public document, and the
donor must know the acceptance by the donee.

Below the terms and stipulations of the

donation, the donor, donee and their witnesses
affixed their signature. However, the
Acknowledgment appearing on the second page
mentioned only the donor, Catalina Quilala.

RTC ruled that Violeta's failure to acknowledge

her acceptance before the notary public, the
same was set forth merely on a private
instrument, i.e., the first page of the
instrument. We disagree.

(Section 112, paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree

No. 1529)
The specification of the location of the signature
is merely directory. The fact that one of the
parties signs on the wrong side of the page does
not invalidate the document. is authenticated by
the parties.

The fact that the donee was not mentioned by

the notary public in the acknowledgment is of
no moment. Donation is valid.