G.R. No. 106755 ; February 1, 2002
Apolinaria Austria-Magat, petitioner, vs. Hon. Court of Appeals and Florentino Lumubos, Domingo Comia, Teodora Carampot, Ernesto Apolo, Segunda Sumpelo, Mamerto Sumpelo and Ricardo Sumpelo, respondents.

FACTS

Basilisa Comerciante owned a residential lot in Cavite. In 1975, she executed a notarized “Kasulatan sa Kaloobpala (Donation)” in favor of her four children, including petitioner Apolinaria Austria-Magat and respondent Florentino Lumubos. The deed stipulated the donation would take effect upon Basilisa’s death and that the property’s value would first cover her burial expenses, with the remainder divided equally. A separate “Kasulatan” attached stated the title would remain with Basilisa during her lifetime and the property could not be mortgaged or sold while she lived. In 1979, however, Basilisa executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the same property in favor of petitioner Apolinaria alone for ₱5,000.00, resulting in the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new one in Apolinaria’s name.
After Basilisa’s death, the other children (or their heirs) filed an action for annulment of title, reconveyance, and damages against Apolinaria. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling the 1975 donation was a void donation mortis causa for failing to comply with the formalities of a will. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Apolinaria’s petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the 1975 “Kasulatan sa Kaloobpala” is a valid inter vivos donation or a void donation mortis causa.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, ruling the 1975 document constituted a valid donation inter vivos (propter nuptias), not a donation mortis causa. The legal logic hinges on the nature of the donor’s retention of rights. A donation mortis causa is essentially a testamentary disposition, revocable at will and taking effect only upon death. In contrast, an inter vivos donation takes effect during the donor’s lifetime, even if the actual enjoyment of the property is postponed.
Here, the deed contained an irrevocable transfer of ownership title, with the donor merely reserving a usufruct (the income and beneficial use) during her lifetime, as evidenced by the attached “Kasulatan” prohibiting sale or mortgage while she lived. This is characteristic of a donation inter vivos. The provision for the donation to be implemented (“magkakabisa”) after her death pertained only to the distribution of the net proceeds after deducting burial expenses, not to the transfer of ownership itself, which was immediate. Consequently, Basilisa’s subsequent 1979 sale to Apolinaria constituted a revocation of the prior donation for violating its condition against alienation. An action for revocation of a donation prescribes in four years, but the respondents’ action for reconveyance, based on the void sale of a property already conveyed via the prior donation, prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the fraudulent title. Their 1983 complaint was filed within this period.