PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS (ATTY.

AMPIL) 15
th
week Imperial Sia Plazo Noel De Los Santos Bleza Cimagala Bedural | 2D 2012|

"

(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;
And

(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should
survive the transferee.
In the present case, the nature of the donations as mortis
causa is confirmed by the fact that the donations do not
contain any clear provision that intends to pass proprietary
rights to petitioners prior to Cabatingan's death. The phrase
"to become effective upon the death of the DONOR" admits of
no other interpretation but that Cabatingan did not intend to
transfer the ownership of the properties to petitioners during
her lifetime.

For a donation mortis causa to be valid it must conform with
the following requisites:
ART. 805. Every will, other than a holographic will, must
be subscribed at the end thereof by the testator himself
or by the testator's name written by some other person in
his presence, and by his express direction, and attested
and subscribed by three or more credible witnesses in the
presence of the testator and of one another.

The testator or the person requested by him to write his name
and the instrumental witnesses of the will, shall also sign, as
aforesaid, each and every page thereof, except the last, on
the left margin, and all the pages shall be numbered
correlatively in letters placed on the upper part of each page.
The attestation shall state the number of pages used upon
which the will is written , and the fact that the testator signed
the will and every page thereof, or caused some other person
to write his name, under his express direction, in the presence
of the instrumental witnesses, and that the latter witnessed
and signed the will and all the pages thereof in the presence
of the testator and of one another.

If the attestation clause is in a language not known to the
witnesses, it shall be interpreted to them.
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.
(n)


8. BONSATO V. CA|UTEA, 95 Phil 481

FACTS:
Josefa Utea and other heirs of deceased Domingo Bonsato and
Andrea Nacario filed a complaint to annul the donations of
several parcels of land made by Domingo Bonsato in favor of
Juan and Felipe Bonsato. The donations were embodied in two
Notarial deeds which the Josefa Utea and the heirs allege
were obtained thru fraudulent inducement.

In the Notarial deeds, the donor reserved for himself a portion
of the fruits of the properties and expressed that after the
death of the donor, the aforesaid donation shall become
effective.

CFI ruled that the donation was inter vivos therefor valid. CA
ruled it was mortis causa therefor invalid for not following the
required formalities.
ISSUE: W/N the donation was inter vivos?

HELD: Inter Vivos. If the donation conveys the ownership and
only reserves for himself during his lifetime the owners share
of the fruits or proceeds, and the deed expressly declares the
act to be irrevocable, it is not a donation mortis causa, but
a conveyance inter vivos.

The solemnities required for a donation inter vivos are those
prescribed by Art. 749 of the Civil Code. But only half of the
property conveyed shall be valid since the property is conjugal
and only Domingo made the conveyance without any consent
from Andrea.
Note: Many portions of the case are in Spanish.


9. ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ

FACTS:
Sps. Gavino Diaz and Severa Mendoza executed a Deed of
Donation in favor of their children, Olimpia, Angel and Andrea
Diaz. In the deed of donation, the Sps. Donated 8 lots, with
reservations on certain lots, to their children and daughters-in-
law and with conditions that they are not allowed to alienate
the same to 3
rd
persons while the couple are still alive and
that they shall continue to administer the same until their
death. The donees manifested their acceptance in the same
deed of donation. When Gavino died, Severa executed a deed
of donation in favor of Angel and Andrea, giving the siblings
each a ! portion of Lot 2377-A. When Severa died, Andrea
sued Angel to have the lots 2377-A and 2502 partitioned.
Teodorico Alejandro, the surviving spouse of Olimpia, moved
to intervene claiming 1/3 portion of Lot 2502.

The CFI ruled that the donation was a donation mortis causa
because the ownership of the properties donated did not pass
to the donees during the donors lifetime but was transmitted
to the donees only upon the death of the donors. It,
however, sustained the partition of Lot 2502 since it was an
extrajudicial partition. Both parties appealed to the SC,
Andrea contending that it is a donation inter vivos while
Alejandro contending it to be mortis causa.

ISSUE: W/N the donation is a donation inter vivos or mortis
causa

RULING: Donation inter vivos
The donation is a donation inter vivos because it took effect
during the lifetime of the donors as provided in Art. 729. It
was stipulated in the deed that out of love and affection by
Whether it is a donation mortis causa or inter vivos can be
inferred upon the execution of the deed as to what the
donor intended it to be.

If the donation conveys the ownership and only reserves
for himself during his lifetime the owners share of the
fruits or proceeds, and the deed expressly declares the act
to be irrevocable, it is not a donation mortis causa, but
a conveyance inter vivos.