ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ- Donation Mortis Causa

All provisions of a deed of donation should be construed together in case of conflicting statements in order to determine whether it is inter vivos or mortis causa.

FACTS:

Sps. Gavino Diaz and Severa Mendoza executed a Deed of Donation in favor of their children, Olimpia, Angel and Andrea Diaz. In the deed of donation, the Sps. Donated 8 lots, with reservations on certain lots, to their children and daughters-in-law and with conditions that they are not allowed to alienate the same to 3rd persons while the couple are still alive and that they shall continue to administer the same until their death. The donees manifested their acceptance in the same deed of donation. When Gavino died, Severa executed a deed of donation in favor of Angel and Andrea, giving the siblings each a ½ portion of Lot 2377-A. When Severa died, Andrea sued Angel to have the lots 2377-A and 2502 partitioned. Teodorico Alejandro, the surviving spouse of Olimpia, moved to intervene claiming 1/3 portion of Lot 2502.

The CFI ruled that the donation was a donation mortis causa because the ownership of the properties donated did not pass to the donees during the donor’s lifetime but was transmitted to the donees only ―upon the death of the donors‖. It, however, sustained the partition of Lot 2502 since it was an extrajudicial partition. Both parties appealed to the SC, Andrea contending that it is a donation inter vivos while Alejandro contending it to be mortis causa.

ISSUE: Whether or not the donation is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa

RULING: Donation inter vivos

The donation is a donation inter vivos because it took effect during the lifetime of the donors as provided in Art. 729. It was stipulated in the deed that out of love and affection by the donors to the donees, the latter are donating wholeheartedly and unconditionally free from any kind of lien and debt. Likewise, it was accepted by the donees which is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis causa are never accepted during the donor’s lifetime.

The reservation clause which provides that the donees cannot sell the lots to 3rd persons while the couple is still alive implies that the ownership already passed.

Although there was a stipulation where the couple reserved to themselves the administration, ownership and rights over the properties mentioned, this should not be construed as to mean that ownership will pass only after their death. This refers to the beneficial ownership and not the naked title and what the donors reserved to themselves by means of that clause was the management of the donated lots and the fruits thereof.