G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990
ROMARICO G. VITUG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ROWENA FAUSTINO-CORONA, respondents.

FACTS

This case arose from the probate of the wills of Dolores Luchangco Vitug. Petitioner Romarico G. Vitug, the surviving spouse, filed a motion in the probate court seeking authority to sell estate properties to reimburse himself for alleged advances totaling P667,731.66 paid for estate taxes. He claimed these were his personal funds, withdrawn from a joint savings account with Bank of America held under a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife in 1970. The agreement stipulated that all money in the account belonged to both and was withdrawable by either, with the balance upon the death of one belonging to the survivor.
Private respondent Rowena Faustino-Corona, the executrix, opposed the motion. She argued the funds were conjugal partnership properties and part of the estate, thus not subject to reimbursement, and sought Vitug’s ouster for allegedly concealing these estate assets. The trial court upheld the survivorship agreement and granted the motion to sell. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the agreement was either a conveyance mortis causa failing the formalities of a will, or a donation inter vivos prohibited between spouses under the Civil Code. It ordered the funds included in the estate inventory.

ISSUE

Whether the survivorship agreement constitutes a valid aleatory contract, thereby vesting ownership of the bank deposits solely in the surviving spouse, Romarico Vitug, and excluding them from the estate inventory.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Vitug, setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The survivorship agreement is a valid aleatory contract, not a testamentary disposition or a prohibited donation. A will disposes of the testator’s own property to take effect after death. Here, the agreement did not involve the disposition of one spouse’s separate property to the other. Following Rivera v. People’s Bank and Trust Co. and Macam v. Gatmaitan, such an agreement creates a joint ownership where either party can withdraw during their lifetimes, with the survivor acquiring the balance by operation of contract, not by succession. The funds were held in joint ownership, and upon the wife’s death, the husband’s right to the entire balance vested by contract.
The Court rejected the appellate court’s view that the agreement was a donation violating Article 133 of the Civil Code (prohibiting donations between spouses during marriage). The agreement was an aleatory contract where the obligation to give the balance to the survivor depended on the uncertain event of who would die first, which is permissible. There was no showing the agreement was executed to defraud creditors or defeat legitimes. Consequently, the funds became Vitug’s exclusive property upon his wife’s death and should not form part of her estate for inventory. The reimbursement for tax payments using these now-exclusively owned funds was thus proper.