URSULINA GANUELAS, et al. v. HON. ROBERT T. CAWED, et al.
G. R. No. 123968, 24 April 2003
Donation inter vivos differs from donation mortis causa in that in the former, the act is immediately operative even if the actual execution may be deferred until the death of the donor, while in the latter, nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the donee until the death of the donor-testator.
Celestina Ganuelas Vda. de Valin executed a Deed of Donation of Real Property in favor of petitioner Ursulina Ganuelas. The pertinent portion of the Deed of Donation reads: ―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death of the DONOR; but in the event that the DONEE should die before the DONOR, the present donation shall be deemed rescinded and of no further force and effect.‖
However, more than a month before Celestina died, she executed a document revoking such donation. After her death, Ursulina claimed ownership over the donated properties and refused to give private respondents Leocadia G. Flores, et al., niece of Celestina any share in the produce of the properties despite repeated demands. Thus, prompting Flores, et al. to file a complaint before the San Fernando, La Union Regional Trial Court (RTC), challenging the validity of the Deed of Donation. They alleged that such donation is void for failure to comply with the formalities of wills and testaments, which is necessary in a disposition mortis causa.
On the other hand, Ursulina maintains that there is no need to comply with the formalities of wills and testaments because such donation was inter vivos.
The RTC ruled that the Deed of Donation is a disposition mortis causa, thus, void for failure to comply with the formalities of wills and testaments.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the donation is inter vivos or mortis causa
HELD:
Crucial in the resolution of the issue is the determination of whether the donor intended to transfer the ownership over the properties upon the execution of the deed. Donation inter vivos differs from donation mortis causa in that in the former, the act is immediately operative even if the actual execution may be deferred until the death of the donor, while in the latter, nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the donee until the death of the donor-testator.
If the donation is made in contemplation of the donor‘s death, meaning that the full or naked ownership of the donated properties will pass to the donee only because of the donor‘s death, then it is at that time that the donation takes effect, and it is a donation mortis causa which should be embodied in a last will and testament.
But if the donation takes effect during the donor‘s lifetime or independently of the donor‘s death, meaning that the full or naked ownership (nuda proprietas) of the donated properties passes to the donee during the donor‘s lifetime, not by reason of his death but because of the deed of donation, then the donation is inter vivos.
The distinction between a transfer inter vivos and mortis causa is important as the validity or revocation of the donation depends upon its nature. If the donation is inter vivos, it must be executed and accepted with the formalities prescribed by Articles 748 and 749 of the Civil Code, except when it is onerous in which case the rules on contracts will apply. If it is mortis causa, the donation must be in the form of a will, with all the formalities for the validity of wills, otherwise it is void and cannot transfer ownership.
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.
In the donation subject of the present case, there is nothing therein which indicates that any right, title or interest in the donated properties was to be transferred to Ursulina prior to the death of Celestina. 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: To classify the donation as inter vivos simply because it is founded on considerations of love and affection is erroneous. That the donation was prompted by the affection of the donor for the donee and the services rendered by the latter is of no particular significance in determining whether the deed constitutes a transfer inter vivos or not, because a legacy may have an identical motivation. In other words, love and affection may also underline transfers mortis causa.
As the subject deed then is in the nature of a mortis causa disposition, the formalities of a will under Article 728 of the Civil Code should have been complied with, failing which the donation is void and produces no effect.
