Romarico G. Vitug vs Court of Appeals and Rowena F.

Corona
GR No. 82027, March 29, 1990
Digest by: Nikki Diane D. Cadiz

FACTS: Private Respondent Rowena F. Corona was named the executrix in the probate of the
two wills of the late Dolores Luchangco Vitug. In its decision, the probate court upheld the
appointment of Nenita Alonte and petitioner Romarico G. Vitug (Dolores Luchangco Vitug’s
husband)

On January 13, 1985, Romarico filed a motion asking for authority from the probate court to sell
certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his
advances to the estate in the sum of almost P600 000.00 which he claimed to be personal
funds. But the CA found that the alleged advances consisted of P58, 147.40 for the payment of
estate tax, P518, 834.27 as deficiency estate tax, and P90, 749.99 as “increment thereto.”
According to Mr. Vitug, he withdrew the sums of P518, 834.27 and P90, 749.99 from savings
account no. 35342-038 of the Bank of America.

Upon learning of Mr. Vitug’s action, Rowena Corona opposed the motion to sell on the ground
that the same funds withdrawn from savings account no. 35342-038 were conjugal partnership
properties and part of the estate, and thus there was no need for reimbursement.

Mr. Vitug insisted that the said funds are his exclusive property having acquired the same
through survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank. So the trial court
granted the validity of this agreement and granted Mr. Vitug’s motion to sell some of the estate
of Dolores. Rowena Corona raised the situation to the CA in petition for certiorari and it held
that Mr. Vitug’s quoted survivorship agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which
did not comply with the formalities of a valid will as prescribed under the law.

In his petition, Vitug, the surviving spouse, assails the appellate court's ruling on the strength of
the SC’s decisions in Rivera v. People's Bank and Trust Co. and Macam v. Gatmaitan in which we
sustained the validity of "survivorship agreements" and considering them as aleatory contracts.

Issue: WON the funds of the savings account subject of the survivorship agreement were
conjugal partnership properties and part of the estate?

Ruling: No. The Court ruled that a Survivorship Agreement is neither a donation mortis causa
nor a donation inter vivos. It is in the nature of an aleatory contract whereby one or both of the
parties reciprocally bind themselves to give or to do something in consideration of what the
other shall give or do upon the happening of an event which is to occur at an indeterminate
time or is uncertain, such as death. The Court further ruled that a survivorship agreement is per
se not contrary to law and thus is valid unless its operation or effect may be violative of a law
such as in the following instances: (1) it is used as a mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation;
(2) it is used to transfer property in fraud of creditors; or (3) it is used to defeat the legitime of a
compulsory heir. In the instant case, none of the foregoing instances were present.
Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of the survivorship agreement entered into by the
spouses Vitug. As such, Romarico, being the surviving spouse, acquired a vested right over the
amounts under the savings account, which became his exclusive property upon the death of his
wife pursuant to the survivorship agreement. Thus, the funds of the savings account are not
conjugal partnership properties and not part of the estate of the deceased Dolores.