BONSATO V. UTEA, 95 Phil 481

If the donation conveys the ownership and only reserves for himself during his lifetime the owner’s 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.

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: Whether or not the donation was inter vivos?

HELD:

Inter Vivos. If the donation conveys the ownership and only reserves for himself during his lifetime the owner’s 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.