Maria is one of the nieces of Doña Carmen, a wealthy widow with no children. On April 11, 1958, Doña Carmen executed a deed of donation in favor of Maria, consisting of seven parcels of land, in consideration of the latter’s care and affection toward her. The deed of donation provided that it would only take effect upon the death of Doña Carmen. It also stated that if Maria predeceased Doña Carmen, the donation would be rendered void. The donation was executed in a public instrument and was ratified in the manner of a will. However, its acknowledgment before the notary was signed only by Doña Carmen and Maria.
On June 10, 1967, Doña Carmen executed a “Revocation of Donation” and a few months later, she passed away. She was survived by Maria and her seven other nieces and nephews, who shared in the produce of the properties left behind.
In 1982, Maria transferred the tax declarations of the properties to her name and began exclusively appropriating the produce, depriving the other heirs of any share.
In 1986, the other nieces and nephews, led by Ana, filed a complaint against Maria. They argued that the deed of donation was a donation mortis causa, which failed to comply with the formal requirements of the Civil Code and was therefore void. They further claimed that, as heirs of Doña Carmen, Maria should return possession of the properties to them, cancel the tax declarations in her name and reimburse the value of the produce from 1982 onwards.
On the other hand, Maria contended that the donation was a donation inter vivos, given in consideration of her love and services to Doña Carmen. She argued that the provision stating that the donation would take effect upon the donor’s death merely meant that full ownership would be transferred to her at that time. Maria also claimed that since the donation was inter vivos, its revocation was invalid for not being based on the grounds provided under Articles 760, 764, and 765 of the Civil Code.
Was Maria correct? No.
There was nothing in the deed indicating that ownership of the properties would be transferred to Maria during the lifetime of Doña Carmen. The condition that it would take effect upon the death of the donor clearly shows that Doña Carmen intended the transfer only after her death, not while she was still alive. The nature of the donation as mortis causa is further supported by the provision that it would be void if Maria predeceased the donor, as well as by its execution in the form of a will.
The donation mortis causa in this case is void because it failed to comply with the formal requirements of a valid will. Its acknowledgment was signed only by Doña Carmen and Maria and was not properly notarized. Moreover, it was expressly revoked by Doña Carmen during her lifetime. Therefore, the donation in favor of Maria has no legal effect. (Ganuelas et. al. Cawad et. al. G.R. 123988 April 24, 2003).
* * *
Email: js0711192@gmail.com