CATAQUIS, ZYREEN KATE B.

G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990

Romarico G. Vitug, vs. The Honorable Court Of Appeals

And Rowena Faustino-Corona

I. FACTS

Romarico Vitug and Nenita Alonte were co-administrators of Dolores Vitug’s

estate while Rowena Corona was the executrix. Romarico, the deceased’s husband,
filed a motion with the probate court asking for authority to sell certain shares of stock
and real properties included in the estate to cover alleged advances claimed as
personal funds and were used to pay estate taxes.

Corona opposed said motion claiming that the advances came from a savings
account included in the estate since it forms part of the conjugal partnership properties.

However, Romarico claims that the funds are his exclusive property, acquired
through a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the Bank of American
National Trust and Savings Association.

The lower court held the agreement valid and granted the motion to sell but was
reversed by the Court of Appeals on the ground that the survivorship agreement
constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which did not comply with the formalities of a
valid will.

II. ISSUE

Whether or not the survivorship agreement was valid

III. RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the ruling of the respondent appellate court
and stated that the conveyance was not mortis causa nor a donation inter vivos.
Further, there is no demonstration that said agreement has been executed for unlawful
purposes. The survivorship agreement being valid, the amount under the savings
account is a separate property of the petitioner and does not form part of the estate of
the deceased.
IV. The conveyance in the case at bar is not, one of mortis causa, which should be
embodied in a will defined as a personal, solemn, revocable and free act by which a
capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or complies with
duties to take effect after his death. Neither is it a donation inter vivos because it was to
take effect after the death of one party and involves no conveyance of a spouse's own
properties to the other.

Further it involves no modification petition of the conjugal partnership and is no

cloak to circumvent the law on conjugal property relations as it may be classified as an
aleatory contract pursuant to Art. 2010 of the Civil Code which depends on either the
happening of an event which is uncertain or that which is to occur at an indeterminate
time.