De Luna vs Abrigo; G.R. No.

L-57455 January 18, 1990 Onerous Donation FACTS:

De Luna donated a portion of a 75 sq. m. lot to the Luzonian University Foundation. The donation was embodied in a Deed of Donation Intervivos and was sub e!t to !ertain terms and !onditions. In !ase of violation or non"!omplian!e# the property would automati!ally revert to the donor. $hen the Foundation failed to !omply with the !onditions# de Luna %revived& the said donation by e'e!utin( a )evival of Donation Intervivos with the followin( terms and !onditions* +, The Donee shall !onstru!t on the land and at its e'pense a -hapel# .ursery# and /inder(arten 0!hool to be named after 0t. 1eroni!a 2, -onstru!tion shall start immediately and must be at least 734 !ompleted three years from the date of the Deed unless the Donor (rants e'tensions 5, 6utomati! reversion in !ase of violation The Foundation a!!epted and the donation was re(istered and annotated in the T-T. 7y a Deed of 0e(re(ation# the foundation was issued a T-T for area the lot donated while the remainin( area was retained by the De Luna. The !hildren and only heirs of the late De Luna 8died after the donation, filed a !omplaint with the )T- for the !an!ellation of the donation on the (round that the terms were violated. The Foundation defended itself by sayin( that it had partially and substantially !omplied with the !onditions and that the donor (ranted it an indefinite e'tension of time to !omplete !onstru!tion. The )T- dismissed the petition on the (round of pres!ription 8for bein( filed after 9 years,. The heirs did not file an :) and went strai(ht to the 0-.

ISSUE:
$hether the a!tion pres!ribes in 9 years 8based on art. 7;9 .--" udi!ial de!ree of revo!ation of the donation, or in +3 years 8based on art. ++99 <enfor!ement of a written !ontra!t,

RULING: 1 !ears
The donation sub e!t of this !ase is one with an onerous !ause. Under the old -ivil -ode# it is a settled rule that donations with an onerous !ause are (overned not by the law on donations but by the rules on !ontra!t. =n the matter of pres!ription of a!tions for the revo!ation of onerous donation# it was held that the (eneral rules on pres!ription apply. The same rules apply under the .ew -ivil -ode as provided in 6rti!le 755 thereof whi!h provides* Donations with an onerous !ause shall be (overned by the rules on !ontra!ts# and remuneratory donations by the provisions of the present Title as re(ards that portion whi!h e'!eeds the value of the burden imposed.

It is true that under 6rti!le 7;9 of the .ew -ivil -ode# a!tions for the revo!ation of a donation must be brou(ht within four 89, years from the non"!omplian!e of the !onditions of the donation. >owever# said arti!le does not apply to onerous donations in view of the spe!ifi! provision of 6rti!le 755 providin( that onerous donations are (overned by the rules on !ontra!ts. The rules on pres!ription and not the rules on donation applies in the !ase at bar. G.R. No. 77425 June 19, 1991

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCH I!HO" O# MANILA $. CA

1"# SCRA $ FACTS:
The spouses donated property to the ar!hbishop with the !ondition that no disposition shall be made within +33 years.

%ELD:
There is no need for pres!ription to be applied in !ases where there is stipulation for automati! reversion. .onetheless# the stipulation is a(ainst publi! poli!y and thus# is void. %% G.R. No. 7420& A'r() 17, 1990 Tayo*o +, -u,o'

AL.JAN/RO $. G.RAL/.0
&# SCRA '()
FACTS:
0pouses Diaz e'e!uted deeds of donation in favor of 6ndrea and 6n(el. 6fter the spouses died# 6ndrea sued 6n(el for the partition of the lots# and that the donations effe!ted before were invalid for not !omplyin( with formalities of a will.

%ELD:
The !ontra!ts show that the donation was in the nature of inter vivos?the a!!eptan!e !lause# warranty !lause# and reservation !lause all lead to this !on!lusion.

AL.JAN/RO $. G.RAL/.0- /ona*(on Mor*(, Cau,a

All provisions of a deed of donation should be construed together in case of conflicting statements in order to determine whether it is inter vivos or mortis causa.

FACTS:
0ps. @avino Diaz and 0evera :endoza e'e!uted a Deed of Donation in favor of their !hildren# =limpia# 6n(el and 6ndrea Diaz. In the deed of donation# the 0ps. Donated A lots# with reservations on !ertain lots# to their !hildren and dau(hters"in"law and with !onditions that they are not allowed to alienate the same to 5rd persons while the !ouple are still alive and that they shall !ontinue to administer the same until their death. The donees manifested their a!!eptan!e in the same deed of donation. $hen @avino died# 0evera e'e!uted a deed of donation in favor of 6n(el and 6ndrea# (ivin( the siblin(s ea!h a B portion of Lot 2577"6. $hen 0evera died# 6ndrea sued 6n(el to have the lots 2577"6 and 2532 partitioned. Teodori!o 6le andro# the survivin( spouse of =limpia# moved to intervene !laimin( +C5 portion of Lot 2532. The -FI ruled that the donation was a donation mortis !ausa be!ause the ownership of the properties donated did not pass to the donees durin( the donorDs lifetime but was transmitted to the donees only Eupon the death of the donors. It# however# sustained the partition of Lot 2532 sin!e it was an e'tra udi!ial partition. 7oth parties appealed to the 0-# 6ndrea !ontendin( that it is a donation inter vivos while 6le andro !ontendin( it to be mortis !ausa.

ISSUE: *+et+er or not t+e ,onation is a ,onation inter vivos or -ortis .ausa

RULING: Donation inter vivos

The donation is a donation inter vivos be!ause it tooF effe!t durin( the lifetime of the donors as provided in 6rt. 72G. It was stipulated in the deed that out of love and affe!tion by the donors to the donees# the latter are donatin( wholeheartedly and un!onditionally free from any Find of lien and debt. LiFewise# it was a!!epted by the donees whi!h is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis !ausa are never a!!epted durin( the donorDs lifetime. The reservation !lause whi!h provides that the donees !annot sell the lots to 5rd persons while the !ouple is still alive implies that the ownership already passed. 6lthou(h there was a stipulation where the !ouple reserved to themselves the administration# ownership and ri(hts over the properties mentioned# this should not be !onstrued as to mean that ownership will pass only after their death. This refers to the benefi!ial ownership and not the naFed title and what the donors reserved to themselves by means of that !lause was the mana(ement of the donated lots and the fruits thereof.

1G.R. No. 127&9&. /e2e34er 4, 19985 Or*(6 +, CA 7 8888 9no* ,ure (: I ;a+e *;e 2orre2* GR NO<

ON!ATO $. CA
") /%IL (#1
FACTS:
)espondents sou(ht the annulment of the deeds of donation on the (round that it wasnDt in !omplian!e with the formalities of a will. The petitioners on the other hand !laim that they are valid donations and that they were not donations mortis !ausa.

%ELD:
If there has been no bad(e that it is

on,a*o +, CA Ca,e /(=e,*

0onsato vs CA ") /%IL (#1
FACTS* The !ase was initiated in the -ourt of First Instan!e of Han(asinan# by respondents Iosefa Utea and other heirs of Domin(o 7onsato and his wife 6ndrea .a!ario# both de!eased. Their !omplaint 8for annulment and dama(es, !har(ed that on the first day of De!ember# +G9G# Domin(o 7onsato# then already a widower# had been indu!ed and de!eived into si(nin( two notarial deeds of donations in favor of his brother Iuan 7onsato and of his nephew Felipe 7onsato# respe!tively# transferrin( to them several par!els of land situated in the muni!ipalities of :abini and 7ur(os# Hrovin!e of Han(asinan# both donations havin( been duly a!!epted in the same a!t and do!uments. Hlaintiffs liFewise !har(ed that the donations were mortis causa and void for la!F of the requisite formalities. The defendants# Iuan 7onsato and Felipe 7onsato# answered averrin( that the donations made in their favor were voluntarily e'e!uted in !onsideration of past servi!es rendered by them to the late Domin(o 7onsatoJ that the same were e'e!uted freely without the use of for!e and violen!e# misrepresentation or intimidationJ and prayed for the dismissal of the !ase. 6fter trial# the -FI rendered its de!ision findin( that the deeds of donation were e'e!uted by the donor while the latter was of sound mind# without pressure or intimidationJ that the deeds were of donation inter vivos without any !ondition maFin( their validity or effi!a!y dependent upon the death of the donorJ but as the properties donated were presumptively !on u(al# havin( been a!quired durin( the !overture of Domin(o 7onsato and his wife 6ndrea .a!ario# the donations were only valid as to an undivided one"half share in the three par!els of land des!ribed therein. ISSUE* $C. the donation was a donation mortis !ausa or a donation inter vivosK %ELD* Donation inter vivos1 If it was a donation mortis !ausa# then the do!uments should reveal any or all of the followin( !hara!teristi!s* 8+, -onvey no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferorJ or# what amounts to the same thin(# that the transferor should retain the ownership 8full or naFed, and

!ontrol of the property while alive 81idal vs. Hosadas# 5A Hhil.# +3AJ @uzman vs. Ibea# ;7 Hhil.# ;55,J 82, That before his death# the transfer should be revo!able by the transferor at will# ad nutumJ but revo!ability may be provided for indire!tly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties !onveyed 87autista vs. 0abiniano# @. ). L"952;# .ovember +A# +G52,J 85, That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee. .one of these !hara!teristi!s is dis!ernible in the deeds of donation e'e!uted by the late Domin(o 7onsato. The donor only reserved for himself# durin( his lifetime# the ownerDs share of the fruits or produ!e 8%de los produ!tos mientras viva el donante tomara la parte que !orresponde !omo dueLo&,# a reservation that would be unne!essary if the ownership of the donated property remained with the donor. :ost si(nifi!ant is the absen!e of stipulation that the donor !ould revoFe the donationsJ on the !ontrary# the deeds e'pressly de!lare them to be %irrevo!able&# a quality absolutely in!ompatible with the idea of !onveyan!es mortis causa where revo!ability is of the essen!e of the a!t# to the e'tent that a testator !an not lawfully waive or restri!t his ri(ht of revo!ation 8=ld -ivil -ode# 6rt. 757J .ew -ivil -ode# 6rt. A2A,. It is true that the last para(raph in ea!h donation !ontains the phrase %that after the death of the donor the aforesaid donation shall be!ome effe!tive& 8que despues de la muerte del donante entrara en vi(or di!ha dona!ion&,. >owever# said e'pression must be !onstrued to(ether with the rest of the para(raph# and thus taFen# its meanin( !learly appears to be that after the donorDs death# the donation will taFe effe!t so as to maFe the donees the absolute owners of the donated property# free from all liens and en!umbran!esJ for it must be remembered that the donor reserved for himself a share of the fruits of the land donated. 0u!h reservation !onstituted a !har(e or en!umbran!e that would disappear upon the donorDs death# when full title would be!ome vested in the donees.

R.>.! $. MA!?@./A
1#& SCRA 221
FACTS:
Dr. Has!ual died without issue and left his properties to his sister and latterDs !hildren as heirs. In the inventory of his estate# Ursula sou(ht to e'!lude those properties that were donated to her by her brother durin( his lifetime. =n one of the properties donated to her# she sold the same to )eyes. It was found out however that after the donation to her was made# it was donated subsequent to a minor.

%ELD:
The donation in favor of Ursula is of inter vivos and thus# it is valid and should be upheld. @iven su!h# as there was no reason to revoFe the donation in her favor# the later donation to a minor is null and void.)MNM0 1. :=0OUMD6" Donation Inter 1ivos The nature of the disposition made is the determinative factor which makes the donation inter vivos or mortis causa and not the title given to a deed of donation.

FACTS:
Dr. Mmilio Has!ual died intestate and was survived by his sister Ursula Has!ual and the !hildren of his late sisters# herein petitioners )uperto )eyes et. al. The heirs of Dr. Has!ual filed 0pe!ial Hro!eedin(s .o. 75"53": in the -FI for the administration of Has!ualDs estate. Ursula then filed a motion to e'!lude some properties in!luded alle(in( that these were donated to her in a donation mortis !ausa in +G;;. This was (ranted by the -FI without pre udi!e to its final determination in a separate a!tion. 6n appeal was made to the 0-. The 0- then issued a T)= en oinin( the -FI from enfor!in( the order. 6mon( the properties donated to Ursula is lot 29 whi!h was also donated in +G;G in a deed of donation inter vivos in favor of =felia Harun(ao who was then a minor at the time of the donation. $hen she rea!hed the a(e of ma ority# she had the donation re(istered but found out that the !ertifi!ate of title was missin( so she filed a petition for re!onstitution of title whi!h was (ranted and she re(istered the donation and was issued a new T-T in her name. Ursula then sold the lot in favor of the )eyes. 7en amin )eyes filed a !omplaint for de!laration of nullity of =feliaDs T-T whi!h prompted =felia to file a petition for re!overy of possession a(ainst 7en amin )eyes. The -FI issued a oint de!ision for the 2 !ases rulin( that =feliaDs T-T was null and void. The I6- affirmed thus an appeal to the 0-.

ISSUES:
8+, $hether or not the probate has urisdi!tion to e'!lude properties donated to Ursula 82, $hether or not the donation e'e!uted in favor of Ursula was a donation inter vivos

RULING:
8+, NM0 It was stressed in the order of the probate !ourt that it was without pre udi!e to the final determination in a separate a!tion. It is well"settled that althou(h a probate !ourt !annot ad udi!ate or determine title to properties# it !an determine whether or not the properties should be in!luded in the inventory to be administered. 0u!h determination is not !on!lusive and is sub e!t to the final de!ision in a separate a!tion. 82, NM0 6lthou(h the donation was entitled Edonations mortis !ausa it has been held that dispositions in a deed of donation do not depend on the title or term used in the deed of donation. It is the body of the do!ument whi!h should be !onsidered in as!ertainin( the intention of the donor. For a donation to be a donation mortis !ausa# the followin( !hara!teristi!s should be present* +. It !onveys no title before the death of the transferor or the transferor retains ownership over the property 2. 7efore his death# the transfer should be revo!able by the transferor at will 5. The transfer is void should the transferor survive the transferee The followin( are not present in the !ase. The transfer of ownership was immediate and

independent of the death of the donor. The provision statin( that the donor has reserved suffi!ient properties for himself to maintain him for life !onfirms the intention of the donor to (ive naFed ownership immediately after e'e!ution of the deed of donation.

3i,a4 ,e Ro.es vs1 /osa,as Digest

1idal de )o!es v. Hosadas @.). .o. 59G57 :ar!h +5# +G55 Imperial, J.: Fa!ts* +. 0ometime in +G25# plaintiffs -on!ep!ion 1idal de )o!es and her husband# as well as one Mlvira )i!hards# re!eived as donation several par!els of land from Msperanza Tuazon. They tooF possession of the lands thereafter and liFewise obtained the respe!tive transfer !ertifi!ates. 2.The donor died a year after without leavin( any for!ed heir. In her will# whi!h was admitted to probate# she bequeathed to ea!h of the donees the sum of H5#333. 6fter the distribution of the estate but before the delivery of their shares# the -I) 8appellee, ruled that plaintiffs as donees and le(atees should pay inheritan!e ta'es. The plaintiffs paid the ta'es under protest. 5. -I) filed a demurrer on (round that the fa!ts alle(ed were not suffi!ient to !onstitute a !ause of a!tion. The !ourt sustained the demurrer and ordered the amendment of the !omplaint but the appellants failed to do so. >en!e# the trial !ourt dismissed the a!tion on (round that plaintiffs# herein appellants# did not really have a ri(ht of a!tion. 9. Hlaintiffs 8appellant, !ontend that 0e!. +593 of the 6dministrative -ode does not in!lude donation inter vivos and if it does# it is un!onstitutional# null and void for violatin( 0M-. 5 of the Iones Law 8providin( that no law shall embra!e more than one sub e!t and that the sub e!t should be e'pressed in its titles J that the Le(islature has no authority to ta' donation inter vivosJ finally# that said provision violates the rule on uniformity of ta'ation. 5. -I) however !ontends that the word Pall (iftsP refer !learly to donation inter vivos and !ited the do!trine in Tuason v. Posadas. Issue: *+et+er or not t+e ,onations s+ou4, be sub5e.te, to in+eritan.e ta6 NM0. 0e!. +593 of the 6dministrative -ode !learly refers to those donation inter vivos that taFe effe!t immediately or durin( the lifetime of the donor# but made in !onsideration of the death of the de!edent. Those donations not made in !ontemplation of the de!edentPs death are not in!luded as it would be equivalent to imposin( a dire!t ta' on property and not on its transmission. The phrase Pall (iftsP as held in Tuason v. Posadas refers to (ifts inter vivos as they are !onsidered as advan!es in anti!ipation of inheritan!e sin!e they are made in !onsideration of death.

Co44e.tor o7 Interna4 Revenue vs Ca-8os Rue,a

n !ovember ", #$%% Political &aw ' (efinition of )tate

:aria -erdeira died in Tan(ier# 8an international zone Qforei(n !ountryR in .orth 6fri!a,# on Ianuary 2# +G55. 6t the time of her demise# she was married to a 0panish -itizen and a permanent resident of Tan(ier from +G5+ up to her death# on Ianuary 2# +G55. 0he left properties in Tan(ier as well as in the Hhilippines. 6mon( the properties in the Hhilippines are several par!els of land and many shares of sto!F# a!!ounts re!eivable and other intan(ible personal properties. =n the real estate the respondent 6ntonio -ampos )ueda# as administrator of her estate# paid the sum of H+++#5A2.33 as estate ta' and the sum of H+5+#7G+.9A as inheritan!e ta'# on the transfer of her real properties in the Hhilippines# but refused to pay the !orrespondin( defi!ien!y estate and inheritan!e ta'es due on the transfer of her intan(ible personal properties# !laimin( that the estate is e'empt from the payment of said ta'es pursuant to se!tion +22 of the Ta' -ode and that he !ould avail of the re!ipro!al provisions of our Ta' -ode. The -olle!tor of Internal )evenue in a de!ision assessed the estate of the de!eased# as defi!ien!y estate and inheritan!e ta'es# the sum of H+;+#A79.G5 in!ludin( interest and penalties# on the transfer of intan(ible personal properties of :aria -erdeira.. ISSUE: $hether or not )ueda is ri(htfully assessed those ta'es. %ELD: %Forei(n -ountry& used in 0e! +22 of the .ational Internal )evenue -ode# refers to a (overnment of that forei(n power whi!h althou(h not an international person in the sense of international law# D=M0 .=T impose transfer of death ta'es upon intan(ible personal properties of !itizens not residin( therein. =r whose law allows a similar e'emption from su!h ta'es. It is not ne!essary that Tan(ier should have been re!o(nized by our (overnment in order to entitle the petitioner to the e'emption benefits provided by our Ta' Law. 7ut sin!e su!h law has not been alle(ed# this !ase is to remanded to the lower !ourt for further trial.

Loren9o vs1 /osa,as :,igest;

Loren9o vs1 /osa,as ;9 Hhil 555 Fa.ts: =n 27 :ay +G22# Thomas >anley died in Samboan(a# leavin( a will and !onsiderable amount of real and personal properties. >anleyDs will provides the followin(* his money will be (iven to his nephew# :atthew >anley# as well as the real estate owned by him. It further provided that the property will only be (iven ten years after Thomas >anleyDs death. Thus# in the testamentary pro!eedin(s# the -ourt of First Instan!e of Samboan(a appointed H.I.:. :oore as trustee of the estate. :oore tooF oath of offi!e on :ar!h +3# +G29# and resi(ned on Feb. 2G# +G52. Hablo Lorenzo was appointed in his stead. Iuan Hosadas# -olle!tor of Internal )evenue# assessed inheritan!e ta' a(ainst the estate amountin( to H2#357.79 whi!h in!ludes penalty and sur!har(e. >e filed a motion in the testamentary pro!eedin(s so that Lorenzo will be ordered to pay the amount due. Lorenzo paid the amount in protest after -FI (ranted HosadasD motion. >e !laimed that the inheritan!e ta' should have been assessed after +3 years. >e asFed for a refund but Hosadas de!lined to do so. The latter !ounter!laimed for the additional amount of H+#+G+.27 whi!h represents interest due on the ta' and whi!h was not in!luded in the ori(inal assessment. >owever# -FI dismissed this !ounter!laim. It also denied LorenzoDs !laim for refund a(ainst Hosadas. >en!e# both appealed. Issue* $hether the estate was delinquent in payin( the inheritan!e ta' and therefore liable for the H+#+G+.27 that Hosadas is asFin( forK %e4,: Nes. It was delinquent be!ause a!!ordin( to 0e!. +599 8b, of the )evised 6dministrative -ode# payment of the inheritan!e ta' shall be made before deliverin( to ea!h benefi!iary his share. This payment should have been made before :ar!h +3# +G29# the date when H.I.:. :oore formally assumed the fun!tion of trustee. 6lthou(h the property was only to be (iven after +3 years from the death of >anley# the !ourt !onsidered that delivery to the trustee is delivery to cestui *ue trust# the benefi!iary within the meanin( of 0e!. +599 8b,.

Mven thou(h there was no e'press mention of the word %trust& in the will# the !ourt of first instan!e was !orre!t in appointin( a trustee be!ause no parti!ular or te!hni!al words are required to !reate a testamentary trust 8;G -.I.#p. 7++,. The requisites of a valid testamentary trust are* +, suffi!ient words to raise a trust# 2, a definite sub e!t# 5, a !ertain or as!ertained ob e!t. There is no doubt that >anley intended to !reate a trust sin!e he ordered in his will that !ertain of his properties be Fept to(ether undisposed durin( a fi'ed period or for a stated purpose.