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 proceedings of the estate 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 personal advances totaling P667,731.66 used to pay estate taxes. Private respondent Rowena Faustino-Corona, the executrix, opposed the motion. She contended that the funds used for the tax payments were not Vitug’s personal funds but were conjugal partnership properties forming part of the estate, as they were withdrawn from a joint savings account with the Bank of America. Vitug claimed exclusive ownership over these funds by virtue of a survivorship agreement executed with his late wife and the bank in 1970, stipulating that upon the death of either spouse, the account balance would belong solely to the survivor.
The trial court upheld the validity of the survivorship agreement and granted Vitug’s motion to sell estate properties for reimbursement. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals reversed. It ruled the survivorship agreement was either a conveyance mortis causa that did not comply with the formalities of a will, or a donation inter vivos between spouses prohibited under Article 133 of the Civil Code. The appellate court directed the provisional inclusion of the bank deposits in the estate inventory and disallowed the reimbursement.

ISSUE

Whether the survivorship agreement constitutes a valid aleatory contract, thereby vesting exclusive ownership of the joint account funds in the surviving spouse, Romarico Vitug, and excluding said funds from the estate inventory.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held 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. In contrast, the funds in the joint account were conjugal in nature, owned jointly by both spouses. The agreement did not involve a transfer of one spouse’s exclusive property but governed the disposition of their joint holdings. Citing Rivera v. People’s Bank and Trust Co. and Macam v. Gatmaitan, the Court characterized such agreements as aleatory contracts where the obligation of the bank to pay the survivor is contingent upon an uncertain event—the death of one of the depositors. This creates a contractual right in favor of the survivor that vests upon the co-depositor’s death.
The agreement is not a donation between spouses. It is a contract with the bank, binding the institution to pay the survivor, not a direct gratuitous conveyance between the husband and wife. There was no evidence the agreement was executed to circumvent laws on wills, donations, or conjugal partnerships. Consequently, upon Dolores Vitug’s death, Romarico Vitug acquired a vested right to the entire balance of the joint account as the surviving party under the contract. Therefore, the funds are his separate property and should not be included in the inventory of the estate of the deceased.