G.R. No. L-44628 August 27, 1987
CONSUELO SEVILLE JUTIC, et al., petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA, VICENTE SULLAN, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Arsenio Seville died intestate, survived by his siblings, including his brother Melquiades Seville. The petitioners are Melquiades’s children, while the respondents are the heirs of Arsenio’s other siblings. The petitioners claimed exclusive ownership over two parcels of land (Lots 170 and 172) and other properties originally owned by Arsenio, based on an affidavit he executed in 1963. This affidavit stated that Melquiades was his only rightful heir and would succeed to the properties upon Arsenio’s death, but it reserved Arsenio’s full ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the properties during his lifetime. After Arsenio’s death in 1970, the respondents filed an action for partition and accounting, asserting co-ownership as legal heirs.

ISSUE

Whether the 1963 affidavit executed by Arsenio Seville constitutes a valid donation inter vivos or mortis causa, thereby vesting exclusive ownership upon the petitioners to the exclusion of the other heirs.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the affidavit did not constitute a valid donation and affirmed the lower courts’ decision ordering partition among all legal heirs. The legal logic is clear: for a donation to be valid, there must be a clear intent to donate and an actual conveyance of ownership. The 1963 instrument was merely an expression of a future desire for Melquiades to inherit, explicitly reserving to Arsenio the full ownership, possession, and benefits from the property during his lifetime. This is characteristic of a disposition mortis causa, which must comply with the formalities of a will, which it did not. Furthermore, Arsenio’s subsequent acts were inconsistent with a completed donation. In 1968, he mortgaged the properties to the Philippine National Bank with Melquiades’s knowledge, demonstrating he still treated himself as the absolute owner. The petitioners’ conduct also negated exclusive ownership, as they failed to pay the mortgage amortizations after Arsenio’s death, leading to foreclosure. Since no valid donation was established, the properties form part of Arsenio’s estate, to be divided by intestate succession among all his legal heirs, the petitioners and respondents, as co-owners. The factual findings of the lower courts, which found no valid donation and upheld co-ownership, are binding absent any clear showing of error.