G.R. No. 123968; April 24, 2003
URSULINA GANUELAS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. ROBERT T. CAWED, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
On April 11, 1958, Celestina Ganuelas executed a Deed of Donation covering seven parcels of land in favor of her niece, petitioner Ursulina Ganuelas. The deed stipulated that the donation would “become effective upon the death of the DONOR” but would be “deemed rescinded” if the donee predeceased the donor. On June 10, 1967, Celestina executed a Revocation of Donation. She died on August 18, 1967. Ursulina subsequently obtained tax declarations in her name and refused to share the produce of the lands with the other heirs.
Private respondents, other nieces of Celestina, filed an action for declaration of nullity of the deed. They argued it was a donation mortis causa void for non-compliance with the formalities of a will, particularly due to a defective acknowledgment. Petitioners countered it was an irrevocable donation inter vivos, and the revocation was invalid as it cited a ground not recognized by law.
ISSUE
Whether the Deed of Donation executed by Celestina Ganuelas is a donation inter vivos or a donation mortis causa.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled the donation is inter vivos, reversing the trial court. The designation as a “donation” and the conveyance phrased as a present transfer are indicative of an inter vivos disposition. The stipulation that it becomes effective upon the donor’s death does not automatically characterize it as mortis causa; it merely postpones the donor’s parting with full ownership and possession, a reservation permissible in inter vivos donations. The provision for automatic rescission if the donee predeceases the donor is a resolutory condition, not a testamentary characteristic dependent solely on death.
Crucially, the deed contained no explicit reservation for the donor to revoke the donation at will (ad nutum), which is the hallmark of a mortis causa disposition. The donor’s subsequent act of revocation, while ineffective against a consummated inter vivos donation, paradoxically underscores the irrevocable nature of the original act. Since the donation was inter vivos, the formalities required for wills are inapplicable. The deed, being a public document, complied with Article 749 of the Civil Code for donations of immovables. Therefore, the donation was valid and irrevocable, except for causes provided by law, which were not present. The properties rightfully belonged to the donee, Ursulina Ganuelas.