G.R. No. 31161, October 28, 1929
EMILIANA BALAQUI, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PLACIDA DONGSO, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Hipolita Balaqui executed a deed of gift (Exhibit A) in favor of Placida Dongso, donating two parcels of land with improvements. The deed stated that the donation was made in recompense for Dongso’s services since childhood, treated as a daughter. A clause in the deed provided: “This gift … does not pass title to her during my lifetime; but when I die, she shall be the true owner…” Hipolita also bound herself to guarantee the property against any claims. After Hipolita’s death, her heirs (the appellants) filed an action to recover the property, contending that the donation was mortis causa (taking effect upon death) and void for non-compliance with the formalities of a will. The defendants (donee and subsequent buyers) argued it was a valid donation inter vivos. The trial court dismissed the complaint, upholding the donation’s validity.

ISSUE

Whether the donation made by Hipolita Balaqui in favor of Placida Dongso is a donation mortis causa (void for lack of testamentary formalities) or a donation inter vivos (valid and irrevocable).

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the donation was inter vivos and valid. The Court ruled that the clause “does not pass title during my lifetime” merely indicated the donor’s reservation of the usufruct and possession until her death, not that the donation was conditioned upon her death. The donation was made out of gratitude for services rendered, not in consideration of the donor’s death. The donor’s guarantee of the donee’s right to the property signified an immediate transfer of ownership, subject only to the reservation of usufruct. Citing Spanish jurisprudence, the Court emphasized that a donation inter vivos is characterized by the donor’s generosity and the donee’s merits, and it becomes irrevocable upon acceptance, even if delivery is postponed until the donor’s death. Thus, the donation was valid, and the subsequent sale by the donee was likewise valid. The complaint was properly dismissed.