Download - Donation Cases

7/23/2019 Donation Cases

1/12

FELICIANO A. CASTRO,petitioner,

vs.

THE COURT OF APPEALS, et al

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Nature of the Case:

Before us for review is the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 25234-R, disissin!

the appeal fro and in effect affirin! the "ud!ent of the Court of #irst $nstance of %an!asinan

in Re!istration Case No. &'5, G.(.R.). Record No. **+.

Facts:

he ori!inal application for re!istration and confiration of title was filed / Ale"andra Austria on

0une , *14&, coverin! *' parcels of land.

ocorro A. Castro suitted an opposition, alle!in! that the lands applied for had een donatedto her / the applicant in *131. )n arch 2, *15' the Court rendered "ud!ent findin! that

Ale"andra Austria had een in possession of the lands in concept of owner since *&14, and

conseuentl/, / virtue of the donation, ordered the re!istration thereof in the nae of the

donee, ocorro A. Castro, su"ect onl/ to the usufruct reserved / the donor in herself for the

rest of her lifetie.

Ale"andra Austria was the widow of the deceased Antonio entenilla. )n arch 3*, *15', filed a

petition to set aside the decision and the order of !eneral default previousl/ entered, and to

have their opposition to the application aditted.

heir petition was !ranted and the case was set for trial anew. eanwhile, Ale"andra Austriadied and ocorro A. Castro was sustituted in her place.

$ssue6 7)N donation of all the ten parcels, e8ecuted / Ale"andra Austria in favor of ocorro A.

Castro A($9.

Held:

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts ruling that said donation was mortis causa and

consequently void because it did not follow the formalities required of a will, pursuant to Article

620 of the old Civil Code, the law in force when the donation was made on September 22,

!"!#

7hether a donation is inter vivos or ortis causa depends upon the nature of the disposition

ade. :9id the donor intend to transfer the ownership of the propert/ donated upon the

e8ecution of the donation; $f this is so, as reflected fro the provisions contained6 in the

donation, then it is inter vivos< otherwise, it is erel/ ortis causa, or ade to ta=e effect after

death.: oeties the nature of the donation ecoes controversial when the donee>s

en"o/ent of the propert/ donated is postponed until after the donor>s death. anresa

coents on this situation as follows6


2/12

7hen the tie fi8ed for the coenceent of the en"o/ent of the propert/ donated e at the

death of the donor, or when the suspensive condition is related to his death, confusion i!ht

arise. To ao!d !t "e #ust d!st!$%u!sh &et"ee$ the actual do$at!o$ a$d the e'ecut!o$

thereof.hat the donation is to have effect durin! the lifetie of the donor or at his death does

not ean the deliver/ of the propert/ ust e ade durin! his life or after his death. #ro the

oent that the donor disposes freel/ of his propert/ and such disposal is accepted / thedonee, the donation e8ists, perfectl/ and irrevocal/ ?articles *& and 23@. ntil the da/ arrives

or until the condition is fulfilled, the donation, althou!h valid when ade, cannot e realied.

Thus, he "ho #a(es the do$at!o$ effect!e u)o$ a certa!$ date, ee$ thou%h to ta(e

)lace at h!s death, d!s)oses of that "h!ch he do$ated a$d he ca$$ot after"ards reo(e

the do$at!o$ $or d!s)ose of the sa!d )ro)ert* !$ faor of a$other.

$t is uite clear fro the ters of the donation that the donor intended to and did dispose of her

properties irrevocal/ in favor of the donee, su"ect onl/ to the conditions therein e8pressed,

one of which was that the latter would have no ri!ht to the products durin! the donor>s lifetie.

This merely indicates a reservation in herself of the usufruct over said properties, which usufruct

would be consolidated with the na$ed ownership of the donee upon the former%s death# The useof the words &se consolidaran& implied transfer of the na$ed ownership, with which the

beneficial title would be consolidated upon arrival of the term thus fi'ed# $n the case of

Concepcion vs. Concepcion, Au!ust 25, *152, 1* %hil. &23, this Court, construin! a deed

captioned as a donation ortis causa, held6

$t is not sufficient to a=e a donation one ortis causa, reuirin! e8ecution of the instruent of

!ift in the for and anner reuired for a will, that the instruent of donation states that it

is ortis causa, if it can e !athered fro the od/ of the instruent that the ain consideration

is not death of the donor ut rather services rendered to hi / the donee, or his affection for

the latter, and title is transferred iediatel/ to the donee, even thou!h the !ift is conditioned to

ta=e effect after death of the donor insofar as possession and en"o/ent of the propert/ isconcerned.

By virtue of the donation executed by the original owner and applicant in favor of

Socorro A. Castro the latter succeeded to the properties applied for, and hence

registration in the name of her Intestate Estate, represented in this case by the petitioner

as administrator, is in order.


3/12

PAULO LAURETA, as ad#!$!strator of the estate of Seera +a%$o * Laureta,

deceased,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

PERO E+ILIO +ATA a$d ESTER +ANO,defendants-appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NOTE: E'h!&!t A o$at!o$ +ade &* the eceased/

Facts:

99 )# 9)NA$)N DC9 BE RA AGN) E (ARA $N #A)R )# %9R)

$($) AA in the unicipalit/ of olsona, $locos Norte, %hilippine $slands, $, evera a!no /

(aureta, widow, sevent/ /ears old and resident of the unicipalit/ of olsona, $locos Norte,

%hilippine $slands, a proprietor / occupation, here/ declared that for the purpose of !ivin! the

/oun! %edro ilio ata, sin!le, seventeen /ears old, resident of this unicipalit/ and son of

%astor ata, alread/ deceased, and ster a!no, a reward for the services which he is

renderin! e, and as a to=en of / affection toward hi and of the fact that he stands hi!h in

/ estiation, $ here/ donate :ortis cause: to said /outh all the properties descried.

$t is aditted that at the tie of its e8ecution, the !rantor was the owner in fee siple of all the

lands therein descried. $n the course of tie the !rantor died and at the tie of her death

%edro ilio ata, the !rantee in the deed, and ster a!no, entered upon and too=

possession of the lands.

he plaintiff applied for and was appointed adinistrator of the estate of the !rantor evera

a!no / (aureta, deceased, and ade a deand upon the defendants for possession of the

lands which was refused, resultin! in this action / the plaintiff as adinistrator, to recover

possession of the preises and the su of %1,''' as the value of the products of the land fro

April 1, *1*&, until the terination of the case, for the su of %*,2'' daa!es, for the unlawful

and wron!ful withholdin! of possession, and costs.

#or answer the defendants ade a specific denial of all of the aterial alle!ation of the

coplaint, and pra/ "ud!ent for costs.

he lower court rendered "ud!ent to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession

of the lands in uestion and fro which the defendants appeal, assi!nin! nine different errors,

the coined sustance of which is that the lower court erred in holdin! that the donation ade

/ the deceased should e construed under the provisions of article 2' of the Civil Code, and

that the defendants did not acuire title to the lands under it, that their possession was ille!al,and that the land was the propert/ of the heirs of the deceased, and in renderin! "ud!ent for

the plaintiff, and in overrulin! the defendants> otion for a new trial.

Rul!$%:

he plaintiff contends and the trial court found that 8hiit A should e construed under the

ters and provisions of article 2' of the Civil Code as follows6


4/12

9onations which are to ecoe effective upon the death of the donor parta=e of the nature of

disposals of propert/ / will and shall e !overned / the rules estalished for testaentar/

successions.

As we anal/e it, 8hiit A is a donation in present and conve/ed the fee siple title to the lands

in uestion su"ect onl/ to the life estate of the donor. $t ust e conceded that durin! her

lifetie the !rantor had a le!al ri!ht to conve/ the fee siple title to her lands to an/ person in

her discretion, reservin! to herself a life estate. $n le!al effect, that is what she did here. he

conve/ance of the lands too= effect upon the a=in! and deliver/ of the deed, reservin! a life

estate onl/ in the donor. he conve/ance itself was not :to ecoe effective upon the death of

the donor,: ut too= effect at the tie of its e8ecution. he instruent does not recite that the

conve/ance itself is not to ecoe effective until the death of the donor, ut, in le!al effect, it

recites that an actual conve/ance is ade su"ect to the life estate of the donor. pon its face

coes suarel/ within the provisions of article 23 of the Civil Code, which reads6

A donation is perfected as soon as the donor has =nowled!e that it has een accepted / the

donee.

(ere, it appears from the instrument itself that )ster *agno accepted the donation on behalf of

the son, and the acceptance is incorporated in the body of the instrument and made a part of it,

and is signed by the donor and acceptor in the presence of witnesses and the instrument as a

whole is legally ac$nowledge before a notary public#

A%a!$, "he$ the !$stru#e$t !s co$strued as a "hole !t sho"s u)o$ !ts face a del!er* a$d

acce)ta$ce. The do$or co$e*s the la$d, a$d !$ a$d &* the sa#e !$stru#e$t the #other

of the do$ee acce)ts the co$e*a$ce u)o$ the ter#s a$d co$d!t!o$s stated !$ the deed.

0here, ho"eer, a deed co$ta!$!$% a )ro!s!o$ that !t !s $ot to ta(e effect u$t!l the

%ra$tor1s death !s actuall* del!ered to the %ra$tee dur!$% the l!fet!#e of the %ra$tor, !t

"!ll &e susta!$ed as a )rese$t %ra$t of a future !$terest.

That !s th!s case. Le%all* s)ea(!$%, !t "as a del!er* a$d a$ acce)ta$ce of the deed. The

facts &r!$% the case s2uarel* "!th!$ art!cle 345 of the C!!l Code. Here, there "as a

do$at!o$ a$d a$ acce)ta$ce &oth !$ the sa#e !$stru#e$t "h!ch #ade !t a )erfected

do$at!o$ "!th!$ the #ea$!$% of art!cle 345.

$n pure donations, in donations until an affi8ed da/, and in donations with a resolutor/ condition

the propert/ is of course conve/ed to the donee durin! the life of the donor and as to this point

there is no uestion.

7hen the tie fi8ed for the coenceent of the en"o/ent of the propert/ donated e at the

death of the donor, or when the suspensive condition is related to his death, confusion i!ht

arise. o avoid it we ust distin!uish etween the actual donation and the e8ecution thereof.

hat the donation is to have effect durin! the lifetie of the propert/ ust e ade durin! his

life or after his death. #ro the oent that the donor disposes freel/ of his propert/ and such

disposal is accepted / the donee, the donation e8ists, perfectl/ and irrevocal/ ?articles *&

and 23@. ntil the da/ arrives or until the condition is fulfilled, the donation, althou!h valid when


5/12

ade, cannot e realied. hus, he who a=es the donation effective upon a certain date, even

thou!h to ta=e place at his death, disposes of that which he donated and he cannot afterwards

revo=e the donation nor dispose of the said propert/ in favor of another. $f the thin! is lost thru

the fault of the donor, or if it is daa!ed, indenit/ a/ e recovered. Re!ardin! donations with

suspensive conditions, it is sufficient to read articles **2' and **22 to understand the effects

which this =ind of donation has durin! the lifetie of the donor. Fe who a=es a donationeffective after his death, a=es a donation, not a le!ac/. he ere nae of the act, when a

different intention does not clearl/ appear, is enou!h in order to a=e applicale thereto the

rules of law referrin! to donations. Fowever, if the ill-naed donor not onl/ postpones the date

of the e8ecution of the donations until his death ut also reserves the ri!ht to revo=e said act at

his pleasure, then this act is not valid as a for of contract< this is in truth a disposition of

propert/ ortis causa which reuires the sae solenities as reuired in a=in! a will.

Although it is not include in the stipulation of facts, it does appear from the record that

some of the property described in Exhibit A was sold and disposed of by the donee

during the lifetime of the donor.

In any event, Exhibit A was a donation in present as distinguished from a gift in future,

hence does not come under the provisions of article !" of the Civil Code.

#he effect of this decision is to hold that $edro Emilio %ata too& and ac'uired a valid title

to the premises in dispute at the time Exhibit A was executed, sub(ect only to the life

estate of the donor, and he is now the owner of the lands described in the pleadings. But

the defendants made a general denial, and did not as& for affirmative relief, hence none

can be granted.

#he (udgment of the lower court is reversed, and the plaintiff)s complaint is dismissed,

with costs in favor of the defendants. So ordered.

6ONIFACIA +ANALO, as ad#!$!stratr!' of the estate of the deceased Plac!da

+a$alo,plaintiff-appellant,

vs.

REORIO E +ESA,defendant-appellee.

Nature of the Case:

his is an appeal rou!ht up throu!h a ill of e8ceptions / counsel for the plaintiff fro the

"ud!ent of Noveer *1, *1*2, where/ the Fonorale icente 0ocson, "ud!e, held that the

lands descried in the coplaint elon!ed e8clusivel/ to the defendant Gre!orio de esa andhis wife, and conseuentl/ asolved the fro the coplaint, with the costs of the case a!ainst

the plaintiff.

Facts:

#ernando Re!alado and %lacida analo )ld and incapacitated for wor=, %lacida has een ill forover a /ear and she feels that her death is approachin!, Both of the are without children to


6/12

inherit fro the a!ree to donate the tract of land which the/ own to Gre!orio de esa and(eoncia analo e8ecuted a private docuent with a reuest that the 9onees ear the e8pensesas would e incurred in case the donor %lacida should die.he court rendered the decision hereinefore entioned. %laintiff saved her e8ception and

oved in writin! for a reopenin! of the case and the holdin! of a new trial, which otion was

denied, with e8ception on the part of the appellant. he correspondin! ill of e8ceptions was

approved and forwarded to the cler= of this court.

Issue:7)N the donation is null and void ecause it was not ade in a pulic instruent.

Rul!$%:

he court held that it is a valid docuent ecause it is considered as an onerous donation,

!overned / the law of contracts and therefore a private instruent was sufficient.

here can e no dout that the donation in uestion was ade for a valuale consideration,

since the donors ade it conditional upon the donees> earin! the e8penses that i!ht eoccasioned / the death and urial of the donor %lacida analo, a condition and oli!ation

which the donee Gre!orio de esa carried out in his own ehalf and for his wife (eoncia

analo< therefore in order to deterine whether or not said donation is valid and effective it

should e sufficient to deonstrate that, as a contract, it eraces the conditions the law

reuires and is valid and effective, althou!h not recorded in a pulic instruent.

nder article *2+& of the Civil Code, contracts are indin! when entered in to etween the

parties, whatever a/ e the for in which the/ a/ have een e8ecuted, provided the

essential conditions reuired for their validit/ e8ist, as set forth in article *2* of the sae code.

The donation in question was recorded in a private instrument e'ecuted by the donors and

signed by three witnesses, the obligation or valuable consideration imposed upon the donee

being stated therein# +f, in accordance with the provisions of article 622 of the Civil Code, such a

donation as this one, made for a valuable consideration, is governed by the law of contracts,

and if these laws do not require that the stipulations between the parties be recorded in a public

instrument inasmuch as a contract entered into verbally is valid and effective and produces all

its consequences under the law-, then with greater reason the said donation for a valuable

consideration set forth in the said document )'hibit p# 6-, although this was a private

document, must be respected, especially when under article 22. of the Civil Code a private

instrument duly authenticated has the same force as a public instrument between those who

sign it and their successors in interest#

A donation for a valuale consideration has alwa/s een re!arded, accordin! to the provisions

of law, as a !enuine contract of cession or transission of propert/, provided that the condition

iposed / the donor upon the donee has een et< and so this court has held in the decision,

aon! others, of the case of Carlos vs# /amil ?2' %hil. Rep., *&3@, wherein this principle was

estalished6


7/12

Fence, the defendant in his own ehalf and for his wife now possesses under title of owner the

two parcels of land iproperl/ claied / the plaintiff Bonifacia analo, since he acuired the

le!all/ and / the eans estalished / law for transferrin! and acuirin! ownership.

#or all these reasons, "ud!ent appealed should e affired,

THE CIT7 OF +ANILA,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

THE RI8AL PAR9 CO., INC.,defendant-appellant.

Facts:

he instruent 8hiit A, e8ecuted on )ctoer 24, *1*2, C.7. Rosenstoc= Co., ound itself

to assi!n, transfer and conve/ to the Cit/ of anila, !ratuitousl/ and irrevocal/, the asolute

ownership of said loc= 44, whereon the cit/ a/ uild or erect a school or schools, or uildin!s

for educational purposes, with pla/!rounds, within the period of three /ears fro the date of the

e8ecution of said instruent. aid partnership, C. 7. Rosenstoc= Co., assi!ned and

transferred to the Cit/ of anila the asolute ownership of a strip of land 2*,1+2.32 suare

eters in area, for the la/in! out, openin!, and construction of a ain street in said Rial %ar=

sudivision, indin! itself oreover to assi!n, transfer and conve/ !ratuitousl/, in favor of the

Cit/ of anila, other portions of land for the la/in! out and openin! of the streets ar=ed and

indicated on the plan attached to the instruent, as soon as the cit/ decided to open an/ of said

streets, with the understandin! that said oli!ation should e in force for three /ears fro the

date of said instruent. But if the partnership of C. 7. Rosenstoc= Co., continued to e the

owner of the land or an/ portion thereof at the end of said three-/ear period, this oli!ation

would e e8tended for another three /ears. $t was e8pressl/ and especiall/ covenanted and

a!reed that C. 7. Rosenstoc= Co., could not assi!n, sell, encuer or alienate the reainderof said estate =nown as Rial %ar= after se!re!atin! therefro the parcel assi!ned in the

second clause of the contract, that is the parcel intended fro the ain street not =nown as

7ashin!ton treet, with an area of 2*,1+2.32 suare eters, e8cept su"ect to the ters of said

contract.

he Cit/ of anila, in turn, accepted the assi!nent ade and proised / C. 7. Rosenstoc=

Co., oli!atin! itself to a=e the constructions indicated in para!raph of the instruent

8hiit A.

he Cit/ of anila copl/in! with the oli!ations contracted in said instruent, opened and

constructed the ain street naed 7ashin!ton, and in proportion as it decided to open the,constructed and opened the streets indicated on the plan 8hiit referred to in the deed, and

estalished adeuate !utters and drains in the streets of the loc=s in which five or ore

houses had een uilt. And havin! reuired the defendant, the Rial %ar= Co., $nc., that

succeeded to the ri!hts and oli!ations of C. 7. Rosenstoc= Co., in the loc= in uestion, to

e8ecute the deed of conve/ance of said loc=, the defendant refused to copl/ with this

oli!ation, thus !ivin! rise to this action wherein the plaintiff pra/s for "ud!ent a!ainst the


8/12

defendant copellin! it to e8ecute the necessar/ deed assi!nin!, transferrin!, and conve/in! to

the Cit/ of anila !ratuitousl/ and without an/ pa/ent or copensation, irrevocal/ and free

fro all conditions, the full and asolute ownership of the parcel of land descried in the

coplaint, whereon the Cit/ of anila a/ construct a school or schools, or an/ uildin! for

educational purposes, and necessar/ pla/!rounds for the recreation of the school children.

he court elow decided the case orderin! the defendant to e8ecute within ten da/s fro the

date when its decision ecae final, the deed assi!nin! and conve/in! to the Cit/ of anila the

full ownership of loc= No. 44 descried in the certificate of title No. 33+&, issued / the

re!istrar of deeds of anila, whereon the Cit/ of anila a/ uild a school or schools, and the

necessar/ pla/!round for the recreation and en"o/ent of the school children, with costs

a!ainst the defendant.

Issue: 0ON the o&l!%at!o$ co$tracted &* C. 0. Rose$stoc( Co., to ass!%$, tra$sfer, a$d

co$e* to the C!t* of +a$!la %ratu!tousl* a$d !rreoca&l*, a$d free fro# all co$d!t!o$s, the

a&solute o"$ersh!) of the la$d here !$ 2uest!o$, has &ee$ ca$celled, a$$ulled, a$d

declared $ull a$d o!d &* !rtue of the deed E'h!&!t ; of 44, "here&* the

defe$da$t ass!%$ed, tra$sferred, a$d co$e*ed a&solutel* a$d def!$!tel* to the )la!$t!ff

seeral )arcels of la$d !$ the R!?al Par(.

Rul!$%:

the fact that the construction of the uildin!s for the school in the loc= in uestion is not a

condition precedent to the assi!nent of said loc= to the Cit/ of anila, and that the three /ear

period fro the date of the deed fi8ed therein was !iven for the e8ecution of the deed of !ift /

the defendant, and not for the uildin! of the schoolhouses / the Cit/ of anila. his is a

contract of assi!nent, or ore specificall/, a contract of onerous donation / virtue of whichthe defendant ind itself to conve/ !ratuitousl/ in favor of the plaintiff the land in uestion, in

consideration of the iproveents that the Cit/ of anila a!rees to a=e certain iproveents

in said sudivision, in consideration of the assi!nent of a portion thereof which the defendant

inds itself to a=e in favor of the plaintiff.

$t is thus seen that in the e8ecution of this contract, the parties referred to the land descried

and referred to in certificate of title No. 5++'. $t is well to reeer that the land in uestion,

that is, loc= 44 of Rial %ar= is the o"ect, as we have said, of certificate of title No. 33+&, ein!

first in the nae of C. 7. Rosenstoc= Co., and now is that of Rial %ar= Co., $nc. he land

descried in this certificate of title has an area of aout 2',&'3 suare eters.

B/ virtue of the order of the court dated Au!ust 4, *1*3, certificate of title No. 33+1 was

cancelled, and certificate No. 4*2& was issued in the nae of said partnership C. 7.

Rosenstoc= Co.

B/ virtue of the order of the court dated a/ , *1*5, certificates of title Nos. 3221 and 4*2&

were cancelled, and in lieu thereof certificates Nos. 5+1 and 5++' were issued for the lands

represented.


9/12

B/ order of the court dated #eruar/ *, *1*+, the nae C. 7. Rosenstoc= was lotted out of

certificates of the title Nos. 33+&, 5+1 and 5++', and in lieu thereof :he Rial %ar= Co., $nc.:

was written.

he re!istrar of deeds of anila certifies in 8hiit 9, that on the ac= of each of said present

certificates of title Nos. 33+&, 5+1 and 5++', the eoranda referrin! to the oli!ations anda!reeents contracted / C. 7. Rosenstoc= Co. in favor of the Cit/ of anila in relations to

the lands represented / said certificates, are still in force.

Concretel/ spea=in!, the lands donated / the defendant to the plaintiff, accordin! to contracts

8hiit A and 5, are for three purposes6 )ne is for the school site, nael/, loc= 44, under

certificate No. 33+&< another is for the ain streets now =nown as 7ashin!ton treet, under

certificate No. 33++< and lastl/, the parcels of land intended for streets, under certificate No.

5++'. $n view of the fore!oin!, we conclude that the previous contracts re!ardin! the

assi!nent of lands for streets, which were annulled, did not and could not refer to loc= 44

?school site@ which is not within the ters of contract 8hiit 5. his ein! so, we are of opinion,

and so hold, that the appellant>s contention set forth in the second assi!nent of error is

untenale.

he "ud!ent appealed fro ein! in accordance with law, it should e, as it is here/, affired,

with the sole odification that the Cit/ of anila ust uild in loc= 44 of the Rial %ar= in

uestion, within a reasonale period of tie. 7ith costs a!ainst the appellant. o ordered.

LEONARO OSORIO,plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

TO+ASA OSORIO, ad#!$!stratr!' of the estate of Petro$a Re*es, a$d THE 7NCHAUSTI

STEA+SHIP CO.,defendants-appellants.

#acts6

9. Antonio )sorio had fored with Enchausti Co., a "oint account association for the

e8ploitation of the shippin! usiness, he ein! the owner of the one-third of the copan/>s

capital. his capital aounted to %5'',''', of which %*,., that is, one-third elon!ed to

9. Antonio )sorio. pon his death, his heirs a!reed to authorie the defendant 9a. oasa

)sorio, then adinistratri8 of the estate of the deceased, to present a pro"ect of partition, and

said adinistrati8 inserted in the pro"ect with the consent of all the heirs, aon! the properties

which elon!ed to the widow 9a. %etrona Re/es, the su of %14,''' as her part in the :share

of the estate in the shippin! usiness of Enchausti Co.,: that is, a little over %*,.,which was the share in said usiness of the deceased )sorio durin! his lifetie. he pro"ect of

partition was approved on a/ *', *1*5, with the consent of the heirs, / the Court of #irst

$nstance of Cavite, which had co!niance of the testaentar/ and adinistration proceedin!s of

the state of the deceased )sorio.


10/12

)n #eruar/ 2&, *1*4, the widow of 9. Antonio )sorio, 9a. %etrona Re/es, now also deceased,

e8ecuted efore the notar/ 9. #lorencio Gonales 9ie a docuent of !ift in favor of her son 9.

(eonardo )sorio, the plaintiff, !ivin! to hi one-half of her share in the one-third part which

elon!ed to her husand in the shippin! usiness of Enchausti Co., a donation which was

dul/ accepted / the donee 9. (eonardo )sorio, who si!ned said docuent with the plaintiff.

After the death of 9. Antonio )sorio and efore the distriution of the estate, Enchausti Co.

purchased the steaer overnor 1orbes and reco!nied the heirs of 9. Antonio )sorio as

havin! an interest to the e8tent of one-third in the ownership and usiness of said steaer. $t

was a!reed upon / all the interested parties that the share of 9a. %etrona Re/es, widow of

)sorio, in the vessel overnor 1orbes, at the tie of the incorporation of :he Enchausti

teaship Co.: was %*,''', euivalent to *' shares of stoc= of said corporation. aid su

was deposited with the teaship Co. until the final settleent of the uestion that had arisen

etween the heirs of 9a. %etrona Re/es as to the ownership thereof for, while the plaintiff

alle!es that, / virtue of the donation ade in his favor / 9a. %etrona Re/es, he is the owner

of said shares and of their value which is %*,'''< the defendant on the other hand contends

that said shares are not included in the donation in uestion and elon! to the heirs of 9a.

%etrona Re/es. uch as the facts which !ave rise to this liti!ation.

The trial court rendered udgment in the case, declaring that the 60 shares of stoc$ in dispute

and their dividends belong to the plaintiff, and ordered the defendant 3a# Tomasa 4sorio,

administratri' of the estate of 3a# 5etrona /eyes, to e'clude them from the inventory and her

accounts, and the other defendant &The nchausti Steamship Co#& to inscribe them in the name

of the plaintiff 3# 7eonardo 4sorio, delivering to him the dividends corresponding thereto, and

denied the counterclaim for the sum of 58.,000, on the ground that said sum represents the

dividends corresponding to the 5!8,000 adudicated to 3a# 5etrona /eyes, in the partition of

the estate of 3# Antonio 4sorio, and donated by her to the defendant in the counterclaim#

Issue: The case ha!$% &ee$ a))ealed to th!s court, cou$sel for the defe$da$t a$d

a))ella$t, !$ su##!$% u) the!r ar%u#e$ts !$ su))ort of the errors ass!%$ed !$ the!r &r!ef,

#a!$ta!$ the t"o follo"!$% )ro)os!t!o$s:

=. The do$at!o$ #ade &* a. Petro$a Re*es !$ faor of the )la!$t!ff "as of $o

alue a$d effect@ a$d

4. That, su))os!$% sa!d do$at!o$ al!d, the 3= shares of stoc(, the alue of "h!ch

!s P3=,, ca$$ot &e co$s!dered as !$cluded a#o$% the#.

Rul!$%:

$t is alle!ed that the donation ade / 9a. %etrona Re/es is void ecause she donated on

#eruar/ 2&, *1*4, a future propert/, such as the share in the usiness of the deceased )sorio,

which was ad"udicated to her on a/ *', *1*5, and ecause in *1*4 she did not have the ri!ht

to all or part of the share which her deceased husand had in the shippin! usiness of

Enchausti Co.


11/12

Carefull/ e8ainin! said article 35 of the Civil Code, in relation to the worth/ opinion of the

coentator anresa, we elieve that the future properties, the donation of which is prohiited

/ said article, are those elon!in! to other, which, as such, cannot e the o"ect of the disposal

/ the donor< ut the properties of an e8istin! inheritance as those of the case at ar, cannot e

considered as another>s propert/ with relation to the heirs who throu!h a fiction of law continue

the personalit/ of the owner. Nor do the/ have the character of future propert/ ecause the diedefore *1*2, his heirs acuired a ri!ht to succeed hi fro the oent of his death, ecause of

the principle announced in article 5+ and applied / article * of the Civil Code, accordin! to

which the heirs succeed the deceased / the ere fact of his death. ore of less tie a/

elapse efore the heirs enter into the possession of the hereditar/ propert/, ut this is not an

ostacle, for the acuisition of said propert/ retroacts in an/ event to the oent of death,

accordin! to article 1&1 of the Civil Code. he ri!ht is acuired althou!h su"ect to the

ad"udication of the correspondin! hereditar/ portion.

he alle!ation that the docuent of 0ul/ 3, *1*5, is void, ecause it does not show the

acceptance of the donee, is of no iportance, ecause of the conclusion we have reached in

discussin! the docuent of donation of #eruar/ 2&, *1*4. $n the second docuent, the donor

onl/ tried to correct what she elieved to e an error in the first, wherein it is stated that in the

partition of the propert/ of her husand there was ad"udicated to her the part of the interest in

the shippin! usiness of Enchausti Co. which she donated to her son (eonardo, when in fact

said partition was /et pendin!. After its approval / the Court of #irst $nstance of Cavite, the

donor e8ecuted the docuent of *1*5, ratif/in! and correctin! the docuent of donation. he

did not a=e a new donation. he e8ecuted a personal act which did not reuire the

concurrence of the donee. $t is the dut/ of the donee, in order that the donation a/ produce

le!al effect, to accept to the donation and notif/ the donor thereof. he acceptance is necessar/

ecause nood/ is oli!ed to receive a enefit a!ainst his will. And all this was coplied with in

the docuent of *1*4. he wills of the donor and of the donee havin! concurred, the donation,as a ode of transferrin! ownership, ecoes perfect, accordin! to article 23 of the Civil

Code.

he uestion whether the streaer overnor 1orbes was or was not purchased with one/

furnished / Enchausti and the heirs of )sorio, indepedentl/ of that forer partnership in which

the deceased )sorio had an interest, is one of the fact and ust e resolved in view of the

evidence adduced at the trial.

$n our opinion the evidence shows conclusivel/ that the vessel overnor 1orbes fors part of

the shippin! usiness of Enchausti Co. in which 9. Antonio )sorio and his estate had an

interest. $t is no ar!uent a!ainst this conclusion that the heirs of )sorio si!ned with Enchausti Co. the !uarant/ reuired / the an= where the one/ used in the purchase of

the 1orbes was ta=en6 ?*@ Because the !uarant/ is for the purpose onl/ for securin! the

pa/ent of the aount indeted and not for e8cludin! the estate of )sorio fro the result of

that an=in! operation< ?2@ ecause, esides said !uarant/, the other vessels of the "oint

account association of )sorio and Enchausti Co. were ort!a!e< ?3@ ecause no new

partnership was fored etween Enchausti Co. and the heirs of )sorio for the purchase of


12/12

the vessel 1orbes< and ?4@ ecause, when nchausti Co. a!reed with the heirs of )sorio in

that his share in the steaer 1orbes was %*'&,333.33, this su was distriuted aon! said

heirs, includin! 9a. oledad )sorio who did not si!n the !uarant/, the accruin! to each %**,

&33.33 and to the widow 9a. %etrona Re/es %*,''', which is the o"ect of this suit.

All of the aove shows that the estate of )sorio had a one-third part of thesteaer 1orbes represented / the capital which was distriuted aon! the heirs, there

accruin! to the widow, / a!reeent of the interested parties, the su of %*,'''. And this su

ein! part of the one-half of one-third of the shippin! usiness of Enchausti Co., which one-

half part accrued to the widow in the distriution of the properties of )sorio< and the widow 9a.

%etrona Re/es havin! disposed of this half, donatin! it to her son 9. (eonardo )sorio, it clearl/

results, in our opinion, that the su of *,''', or the correspondin! shares of the new

corporation :he Enchausti teaship Co.: are included in said donation, and therefore elon!

to the plaintiff-appellee.

7ith respect to the counterclai of %45,'1,1*, we are of the opinion that the evidence "ustifies

the conclusion of the trial court that the/ are the profits or dividends accruin! to the %14,''',

which were ad"udicated to the widow 9a. %etrona Re/es in the distriution of the estate of the

deceased )sorio and which were donated / her to the plaintiff, and as such profits the/ elon!

to the latter, upon the principle of law that ownership of propert/ !ives ri!ht / accession to all

that it produces, or is united or incorporated thereto, naturall/ or artificiall/. ?Art. 353 of the Civil

Code.@

$n view of what has een said, the "ud!ent appealed fro should e, as it is here/, affired,

with costs a!ainst the appellant. o ordered.

Download - Donation Cases

Top Related