GESTOPA V.

CA

FACTS:
Spouses Danlag were the owners of six parcels of unregistered lands. They executed three deeds of donation
mortis causa in favor of private respondent Mercedes Danlag-Pilapil.
Years gone by Spouses Danlag again executed a deed of donation inter vivos covering the previous parcels of
land plus two other parcels again in favor of private respondent Mercedes which contained conditions.
Consequently, Spouses sold parcels of land included in the said deeds of donation to petitioners, Spouses
Gestopa. Then, the Danlags executed a deed of revocation recovering the six parcels of land subject of the aforecited
deed of donation inter vivos.
Private Respondent filed a petition to RTC for quieting of title, averring that she had already become the
owner of the parcels of land. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, upon appeal CA reversed its decision. Hence, this
appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the donation is a donacion inter vivos or mortis causa.

HELD:
Yes. Note first that the granting clause shows that Diego donated the properties out of love and affection for
the donee. This is a mark of a donation inter vivos. Second, the reservation of lifetime usufruct indicates that the
donor intended to transfer the naked ownership over the properties. As correctly posed by the Court of Appeals,
what was the need for such reservation if the donor and his spouse remained the owners of the properties? Third,
the donor reserved sufficient properties for his maintenance in accordance with his standing in society, indicating
that the donor intended to part with the six parcels of land. Lastly, the donee accepted the donation. In the case of
Alejandro vs. Geraldez, the Court said that an acceptance clause is a mark that the donation is inter vivos.
Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are not
required to be accepted by the donees during the donors' lifetime.
FACTS:
Sps. Gavino Diaz and Severa Mendoza executed a Deed of Donation in favor of their children. In the deed of
donation, the Sps. donated lots with reservations on certain lots to their children and daughters-in-law and with
conditions that they are not allowed to alienate the same to 3rd persons while the couple are still alive and that they
shall continue to administer the same until their death. The donees manifested their acceptance in the same deed of
donation. When Gavino died, Severa executed a deed of donation in favor of Angel and Andrea, giving the siblings
each a ½ portion. When Severa died, Andrea sued Angel to have the lots partitioned. Teodorico Alejandro, the
surviving spouse of Olimpia, moved to intervene claiming 1/3 portion.
The CFI ruled that the donation was a donation mortis causa because the ownership of the properties
donated did not pass to the donees during the donor’s lifetime but was transmitted to the donees only ―upon the
death of the donor.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the donation is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa.

RULING:
The donation is a donation inter vivos because it took effect during the lifetime of the donors as provided in
Art. 729. It was stipulated in the deed that out of love and affection by the donors to the donees, the latter are
donating wholeheartedly and unconditionally free from any kind of lien and debt. Likewise, it was accepted by the
donees which is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis causa are never accepted during the
donor’s lifetime.
The reservation clause which provides that the donees cannot sell the lots to 3rd persons while the couple is
still alive implies that the ownership already passed.
Although there was a stipulation where the couple reserved to themselves the administration, ownership
and rights over the properties mentioned, this should not be construed as to mean that ownership will pass only
after their death. This refers to the beneficial ownership and not the naked title and what the donors reserved to
themselves by means of that clause was the management of the donated lots and the fruits thereof.