Zapanta v.

Posadas
(G.R. No. L-29204. December29, 1928)

FACTS:
Father Braulio Pineda died in January 1925 without any ascendants or descendants, leaving a will in
which he instituted his sister Irene Pineda as the sole heiress. During his lifetime, he donated some of his
property to the six plaintiffs in this case with the condition to pay him a certain amount of rice, and
others of money every year, and with the express provision that failure to fulfil this condition would
revoke the donations ipso facto. These plaintiffs, relatives and some of them brothers of Fr. Pineda, filed
an action against the Collector of Internal Revenue as they were made to pay inheritance taxes on the
properties donated to them. They paid under protest and claimed that the donation was inter vivos,
thus not subject to inheritance tax and ordered the defendants to return to each plaintiffs the sum paid
by the latter. Dependant appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the deeds of donation executed by Fr. Pineda to each of the plaintiffs are donations
inter vivos, or mortis causa, for it is the latter upon which the Administrative Code imposes inheritance
tax.

HELD:
The contentions of the plaintiffs are correct. Donations were made inter vivos; thus, they are not subject
to inheritance tax. Judgment appealed from is affirmed. In a donation mortis causa it is the donor’s
death that determines that acquisition of, or the right to, the property donated, and the donation is
revocable at the donor’s will, Where the donation took effect immediately upon the donee’s acceptance
thereof and it was subject to the resolutory condition that the donation would be rovoked if the done
did not give the donor a certain quantity of rice or sum of money, the donation is inter vivos.
Neither does the fact that these donations are revocable, give them the character of donations mortis
causa, in as much as the revocation is not the failure to fulfil the condition imposed. Neither can these
donations reconsidered as an advance on inheritance or legacy because they are neither an inheritance
nor a legacy. And it cannot be said that the plaintiffs received such advance on inheritance or legacy,
since they were not heirs or legatees of their predessor in interest upon his death. Neither can it be said
that they obtained this inheritance or legacy by virtue of a document which does not contain the
requisites of a will.
Moreover, they were made in consideration of the donor’s affection for the donees, and of the services
they had rendered him, but he has charged them with the obligation to pay him a certain amount of rice
and money, respectively, each year during his lifetime, the donations to become effective upon
acceptance. They are therefore not in the nature of donations mortis causa but inter vivos.
.