GR L 8327; (December, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8327 December 14, 1955
ANTONINA CUEVAS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CRISPULO CUEVAS, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
On September 18, 1950, Antonina Cuevas executed a notarized deed entitled “Donacion Mortis Causa,” ceding the northern half of a parcel of unregistered land to her nephew, Crispulo Cuevas, who accepted it. On May 26, 1952, Antonina executed another instrument entitled “Revocacion de Donacion Mortis Causa” to set aside the conveyance. She then filed an action to recover the land on the grounds that: (1) the donation, being mortis causa, was lawfully revoked; or (2) even if inter vivos, it was invalid due to improper acceptance, failure to reserve sufficient property for her maintenance, and the donee’s ingratitude for refusing to support her. The Court of First Instance denied recovery. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.
ISSUE
Whether the deed “Exhibit A” constitutes a donation inter vivos or a disposition mortis causa.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the donation was inter vivos. The deed, despite its title and a provision that the donor would retain possession, cultivation, harvesting, and other rights of ownership while alive, contained a crucial phrase: the donor stated she “will not take away” the property “because I reserve it for him when I die.” This manifested an express renunciation of the right to freely dispose of the property, rendering the conveyance of the naked title irrevocable—a characteristic of donations inter vivos, incompatible with testamentary dispositions that are freely revocable under Article 828 of the New Civil Code. The donor retained only the beneficial use (dominium utile) during her lifetime, not full ownership. The acceptance was valid, as the donee’s expressed gratitude and respect for the terms implied acceptance. The donor reserved all benefits from the property for her support during her lifetime, so no deficiency due to the donation was shown. The charge of ingratitude failed, as the donee’s limited income (P30 monthly) for supporting his own family precluded an obligation to support the donor. The appealed decision was affirmed. No costs were awarded.