Ganuelas v.

Cawed
GR. NO. 123968
Apr. 24, 2003

Petitioner/s: URSULINA GANUELAS – niece of Celestina

Respondent/s: Flores, et. Al. - Other nieces of Celestina

Facts:
 On Apr. 11, 1958, Celestina executed a Deed of Donation over 7 parcels of land in favor of her
niece Ursulina (petitioner).

o Pertinent provision of the Deed:

That, for and in consideration of the love and affection which the DONOR has for the
DONEE, and of the faithful services the latter has rendered in the past to the former, the
said DONOR does by these presents transfer and convey, by way of DONATION, unto the
DONEE the property above, described, to become effective upon the death of the
DONOR; but in the event that the DONEE should die before the DONOR, the present
donation shall be deemed rescinded and of no further force and effect.

 On June 10, 1967, Celestina executed a document denominated as Revocation of Donation

purporting to set aside the deed of donation.
 On Aug. 18, 1976 (or more than a month after the revocation), Celestina died without issue and
any surviving ascendants and siblings.
 In 1982, Ursulina secured the corresponding tax declarations of the donated properties, and
since then, she refused to give private respondents (nieces of Celestina) any share in the
produce of the properties despite repeated demands.
 Thus, private respondents filed a complaint against Ursulina
o Private respondents’ contention/s:
(1) the validity of the Deed of Donation for lack of acknowledgment by the
attesting witnesses thereto before the notary public, and
(2) the donation was a disposition mortis causa which failed to comply with
the provisions of the Civil Code regarding formalities of wills and testaments,
hence, it was void.
o Petitioner’s (Ursulina) contention:
 The donation was inter vivos as contemplated in Art. 729 of the CC, hence, the
deed did not have to comply with the requirements for the execution of a valid
will.
 The Revocation of Donation is null and void as the ground mentioned therein is
not among those provided by law to be the basis thereof. (Arts. 760, 764 & 765
of the CC)
ISSUE:
Is the Deed of Donation executed by Celestina in favor of Ursulina Inter Vivos?

RULING:
No. The Deed of Donation is Mortis Causa since nothing in the Deed of Donation indicated that any
right, title or interest in the donated properties was to be transferred to Ursulina prior to the death of
Celestina.

The distinguishing characteristics of a donation mortis causa are the following:

1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or, what
amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and
control of the property while alive;

2. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but
revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose
of the properties conveyed;

3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.

The phrase “to become effective upon the death of the DONOR” admits of no other interpretation but
that Celestina intended to transfer the ownership of the properties to Ursulina on her death, not during
her lifetime.

More importantly, the provision in the deed stating that if the donee should die before the donor, the
donation shall be deemed rescinded and of no further force and effect shows that the donation is a
postmortem disposition.

As stated in a long line of cases, one of the decisive characteristics of a donation mortis causa is that the
transfer should be considered void if the donor should survive the donee.

More. The deed contains an attestation clause expressly confirming the donation as mortis causa.

SINCE THE DONATION IS MORTIS CAUSA, it should comply with the formalities of a will under Art. 728
of the CC, failing which the donation is void and produces no effect.

Also, the attesting witnesses failed to acknowledge the deed before the notary public, thus violating Art.
806 of the CC.

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.

DONATION INTER VIVOS DONATION MORTIS CAUSA

The act is immediately operative even if the Nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the donee
actual execution may be deferred until the death until the death of the donor-testator.
of the donor.
 The full or naked ownership of the donated The full or naked ownership of the donated
properties passes to the donee during the properties will pass to the donee only because of
donor’s lifetime, not by reason of his death but the donor’s death.
because of the deed of donation.

Validity
Must be executed with the formalities prescribed Must be in the form of a will, with all the
by Articles 748 and 749 of CC, except when it is formalities for the validity of wills.
onerous in which case the rules on contracts will
apply.

VILLANUEVA V. BRANOCO

Petitioner - Gonzalo Villanueva

- Bought the disputed property from Vere, who, in turn bought the same from Alvegia
Rodrigo in Aug. 1970.

Respondents - SPS. BRANOCO

- Bought the property from Eufracia Rodriguez (niece of Rodrigo) to whom Rodrigo
donated the property in May 1965.
- Alleges that the donation was

CONTENTION/S:
- PETITIONER - Alleges that the donation is mortis causa, therefore, the sale subjected
the donation revoked thus living his title over the property superior.
- RESPONDENTS – alleges that the donation is inter vivos, thus validly passing the
ownership to Rodriguez, making the subsequent sale to Vere invalid.

The pertinent provisions of the Deed of Donation provides:

 It is now in the possession of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ since May 21, 1962 in the concept of an
owner, but the Deed of Donation or that ownership be vested on her upon my demise.
 If the herein donee predeceases me, the same land will not be reverted to the Donor, but will be
inherited by the heirs of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ.
 The donation was accepted by Rodriguez in the same Deed.

Issue:

Is the donation made by Rodrigo in favor of Rodriguez inter vivos?

RULING: YES. The donation is inter vivos.

The distinguishing characteristics of a donation mortis causa are the following:

 1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or, what
amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and
control of the property while alive;

2. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but
revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose
of the properties conveyed;

3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.

FURTHER

[4] [T]he specification in a deed of the causes whereby the act may be revoked by the donor indicates
that the donation is inter vivos, rather than a disposition mortis causa[;]

[5] That the designation of the donation as mortis causa, or a provision in the deed to the effect that the
donation is "to take effect at the death of the donor" are not controlling criteria; such statements are to
be construed together with the rest of the instrument, in order to give effect to the real intent of the
transferor[;] [and]

(6) That in case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed donation inter vivos rather than mortis
causa, in order to avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the property subject of the deed.

HERE:

First. Rodrigo stipulated that "if the herein Donee predeceases me, the [Property] will not be reverted to
the Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of x x x Rodriguez," signaling the irrevocability of the
passage of title to Rodriguez’s estate, waiving Rodrigo’s right to reclaim title.

Second. What Rodrigo reserved for herself was only the beneficial title to the Property, evident from
Rodriguez’s undertaking to "give one [half] x x x of the produce of the land to Apoy Alve during her
lifetime."

Third. The existence of consideration other than the donor’s death, such as the donor’s love and
affection to the donee and the services the latter rendered, while also true of devises, nevertheless
"corroborates the express irrevocability of x x x [inter vivos] transfers."