CASE:3
JUTIC V. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-44628. August 27, 1987
FACTS:
Vicente Sullan and the other respondents, in alleging that
they are the heirs of the decent, filed a complaint against
Consuelo Jutic and the other petitioners for the partition
and accounting of the properties of Arsenio Seville.
In their answer, the petitioners averred that are the owners
of the properties involved (namely lots 170 and 172) and
the improvements thereon since they are the surviving heirs
of Melquiades Seville who is the sister of the deceased
Arsenio Seville. The latter was said to have died ahead of
the former and that during the lifetime of Arsenio, he
executed an instrument. Petitioners further alleged that
Melquiades and his family have been in actual possession,
occupation and cultivation of the property since 1954 in
concept of owner and that after his demis, his heirs
succeeded the occupation and possession of the same with
the knowledge of the herein respondents and with the
acquiescence of Arsenio during his lifetime. Furthermore, it
was said that even during the lifetime of the deceased
Arsenio Seville it had been his desire, intention and his
wish that Lots 170 and 172 shall be owned by Melquiades
Seville, the father of the herein defendants. Such desire and
intention was manifested by an affidavit by Arsenio which
states that:
"That I am a widower as indicated above and that I have no
one to inherit all my properties except my brother
Melquiades Seville who appears to be the only and rightful
person upon whom I have the most sympathy since I have
no wife and children: "That it is my desire that in case I
will die I will assign all my rights, interest share and
participation over the above-mentioned property and
that he shall succeed to me in case of my death...”
RTC ruled in favor of private respondents, legal heirs of
Arsenio. Such ruling was affirmed by the CA.
ISSUES:
WON there was a valid donation from Arsenio to
Melquiades.
HELD:
No. The trial court was correct in stating that "a close
reading reveals that Exhibit 4 is not a donation inter vivos
or mortis causa but a mere declaration of an intention and a
desire. Certainly, it is not a concrete and formal act of
giving or donating. There clearly was no intention to
transfer ownership from Arsenio Seville to Melquiades
Seville at the time of the instrument’s execution. It was a
mere intention or a desire on the part of Arsenio Seville
that in the event of his death at some future time, his
properties should go to Melquiades Seville.
It is quite apparent that Arsenio Seville was thinking of
succession (." . . in case I will die, I will assign all my
rights, share and participation over the above-mentioned
properties and that he shall succeed to me in case of my
death. . . ."). Donations which are to take effect upon the
death of the donor partake of the nature of testamentary
provisions and shall be governed by the rules established in
the title on succession. Petition dismissed.
CASE:4
MAGLASANG V. CABATINGAN
[G.R. No. 131953. June 5, 2002]
FACTS:
On February 17, 1992, Conchita Cabatingan executed in
favor of Nicolas Cabatingan, her brother, a Deed of
Conditional of Donation (sic) Inter Vivos for House and
Lot covering one-half () portion of the formers house and
lot in Cot-cot, Cebu. Four (4) other deeds of donation were
subsequently executed by Conchita Cabatingan bestowing
upon: (a) petitioner Estela C. Maglasang, two (2) parcels of
land located in Cogon and Masbate; (b) petitioner Nicolas
Cabatingan, a portion of a parcel of land located in
Masbate; and (c) petitioner Merly S. Cabatingan, a portion
of the Masbate property. All of the said deeds contain
similar provisions which state that the same shall become
effective upon the death of the DONOR; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, that in the event that the DONEE should
die before the DONOR, the present donation shall be
deemed automatically rescinded and of no further force
and effect.
In 1995, Conchita died. Upon knowing of the
abovementioned donations, herein respondents filed with
the RTC of Mandanue an action for Annulment of the same
wherein they allege that that petitioners, through their
sinister machinations and strategies and taking advantage
of Conchita Cabatingans fragile condition, caused the
execution of the deeds of donation, and, that the documents
are void for failing to comply with the provisions of the
Civil Code regarding formalities of wills and testaments (It
must be acknowledged before a notary public by the
testator and the witnesses – Art 806, NCC), considering
that these are donations mortis causa. Petitioners contended
in their answer that Conchita freely, knowingly and
voluntarily caused the preparation of the instruments. RTC
ruled in favor of herein respondents.
ISSUE: WON the deed involves a donation mortis causa.
HELD:
Yes, the nature of the donations as mortis causa is
confirmed by the fact that the donations do not contain any
clear provision that intends to pass proprietary rights to
petitioners prior to Conchita’s death. The phrase to become
effective upon the death of the DONOR admits of no other
interpretation but that Cabatingan did not intend to transfer
the ownership of the properties to petitioners during her
lifetime. Considering that the deeds are donations mortis
cause, they must be executed in accordance with the
requisites on solemnities of wills and testaments under Art.
805 and 806, to wit:

ART. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must

be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself or
by the testators name written by some other person in his
presence, and by his express direction, and attested and
subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person requested by him to write his
name and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also
sign, as aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the
last, on the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered
correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each
page.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon
which the will is written , and the fact that the testator
signed the will and every page thereof, or caused some
other person to write his name, under his express direction,
in the presence of the instrumental witnesses, and that the
latter witnessed and signed the will and all the pages
thereof in the presence of the testator and of one another.
If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the
witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them. (n)
ART. 806. Every will must be acknowledged before a
notary public by the testator and the witnesses. The notary
public shall not be required to retain a copy of the will, or
file another with the office of the Clerk of Court. (n)
The deeds in question although acknowledged before a
notary public of the donor and the donee, the documents
were not executed in the manner provided for under the
above-quoted provisions of law.
Such requisite was not duly complied with.

Petition denied.