JUTIC vs. CA- Intent to Donate

A letter showing an intention to donate is not sufficient to prove donation; and most certainly not the form required by law in donations.

FACTS:

The properties of Arsenio Seville, who had no wife or children, here are under dispute which includes 2 parcels of agricultural land. Petitioners herein are heirs of Melquiades Seville who was one of the siblings of the deceased Arsenio Seville. Respondents are other heirs claiming rightful ownership over the properties. The petitioners claim that the 2 parcels of land with improvements thereon was donated to their father in an affidavit executed by Arsenio Seville to Melquindes Seville. It stated that the latter was the only one to who the former intended (note: this is only a manifest intention or desire similar to the previous case- the last part of the document says ―That I make this affidavit to amek manifest my intention and desire as to the way the above –mentioned property...‖) to inherit all his properties.

ISSUES:

Whether or not there was a valid donation from Arsenio Seville to Melquiades Seville?

RULING: NO.

A close reading of the letter reveals that it is not a donation inters vivos or motis causa but a mere declaration of an intention and a desire. The fact that the property was mortgage by Arsenio with the knowledge of the Melquiades shows that ownership has not yet transferred. Also when Arsenio died, payments to the loan for which the property was mortgaged stopped and was not continued by the petitioners. It was even foreclosed but was later on redeemed by one of Arsenio’s brothers, Zoilo, who is also one of the respondents.

Petitioners has a rightful claim over the property based on the fact that they are heirs of Arsenio but not because of the alleged affidavit executed in favour of Melquidas.

Also it is worth noting that the signed affidavit is a forgery because Arsenio Sevile was illiterate during his lifetime. He could not write his name and only affixed his thumbmak in the REM mentioned earlier.