GR 33849; (August, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33849 and L-33968 August 18, 1977
TEODORICO ALEJANDRO, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ, et al., respondents. ANDREA DIAZ, petitioner, vs. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ, et al., respondents.
FACTS
The spouses Gabino Diaz and Severa Mendoza, along with their daughter-in-law and three children, executed a Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob (Deed of Donation) on January 20, 1949, covering eight parcels of land. The deed specifically provided that Lot No. 2502 was to be divided, with one-half donated to their son Angel Diaz and the other half to their daughter Andrea Diaz. The instrument contained several stipulations: the donees would bear the donors’ medical and burial expenses; the donees could not sell the properties to third parties while the donors were alive, except to cover the donors’ maintenance expenses; and the donors retained the right to manage, possess, and own the properties during their lifetime, with full ownership and power passing to the donees upon the donors’ death.
After the donors died, a dispute arose over Lot No. 2502. The heirs of Olimpia Diaz (another donee who predeceased the donors), the Alejandros, filed an action for partition, claiming the lot was part of Olimpia’s estate. Andrea Diaz opposed, asserting ownership via the donation. The trial court declared the donation void for being mortis causa but failing to comply with the formalities of a will. Both parties appealed.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the 1949 Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob constitutes a valid donation inter vivos or a void donation mortis causa.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled the donation was a valid donation inter vivos. The legal logic hinges on the nature of the transfer as irrevocable and effective during the donors’ lifetime, not merely upon their death. The Court emphasized that the donors’ reservation of the right to possess, manage, and own the properties during their lifetime is not incompatible with a donation inter vivos; it is merely a reservation of the usufruct or beneficial enjoyment. The naked title or ownership (nuda proprietas) was immediately transferred to the donees upon the deed’s execution and acceptance.
The stipulation that full power would vest upon the donors’ death referred to the removal of the usufructuary restrictions, not the transfer of ownership itself. The prohibitions against alienation were valid conditions imposed on the donation, not indications that the conveyance was testamentary. Since the donation was inter vivos, it was validly executed as a public document and accepted therein. The Court reversed the trial court’s decision, upheld the donation, and adjudicated the western half of Lot No. 2502 to Angel Diaz and the eastern half to Andrea Diaz.