No longer yours
Spouses Dan were the owners of six parcels of unregistered lands. They executed three deeds of donation mortis causa, two of which are dated Mar. 4 and another dated Oct. 13, in favor of Mercy.
The first deed pertained to parcels 1 and 2. The second deed pertained to parcel 3. All deeds contained the reservation of the right of the donors to amend, cancel or revoke the donation during their lifetime, and to sell, mortgage or encumber the properties donated during the donors’ lifetime, if deemed necessary.
Later, Dan, with the consent of his wife, executed a Jan. 16 deed of donation inter vivos covering the aforementioned parcels of land plus two other parcels again in favor of Mercy. This contained two conditions, that first, the spouses shall continue to enjoy the fruits of the during their lifetime, and that second, the donee cannot sell or dispose of the land during the lifetime of the said spouses, without their prior consent and approval. Mercy caused the transfer of the parcels’ tax declaration to her name and paid the taxes on them.
Diego and Lina sold parcels 3 and 4 to spouses Agri. Accordingly, spouses Dan executed a deed of revocation recovering the six parcels of land subject of the aforecited deed of donation inter vivos.
When Mercy found out the sale of the properties, she filed a petition against spouses Dan and spouses Agri for quieting of title over the above parcels of land. Mercy alleged that she was an illegitimate daughter of Dan; that she lived and rendered incalculable beneficial services to Dan and his mother, Ura, when the latter was still alive.
In recognition of the services she rendered, Dan executed a Deed of Donation conveying to her the six parcels of land. She accepted the donation in the same instrument, openly and publicly exercised rights of ownership over the donated properties, and caused the transfer of the tax declarations to her name.
Mercy said she had complied with all of the conditions of the donation inter vivos.
Q: Is the Jan. 16 a donation inter vivos or mortis causa?
A: In ascertaining the intention of the donor, all of the deeds provisions must be read together. Noticeable is that the deed of donation dated Jan. 16 contained a clause that shows that Dan donated the properties out of love and affection for the donee. This is a mark of a donation inter vivos.
Second, the reservation of lifetime usufruct indicates that the donor intended to transfer the naked ownership over the properties. What was the need for such reservation if the donor and his spouse remained the owners of the properties?
Third, the donor reserved sufficient properties for his maintenance in accordance with his standing in society, indicating that the donor intended to part with the six parcels of land.
Lastly, the donee accepted the donation. An acceptance clause is a mark that the donation is inter vivos. Acceptance is a requirement for donations inter vivos. Donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are not required to be accepted by the donees during the donors’ lifetime.
Q: Did Diego have to dispose the properties covered by the Jan. 16 Deed of Donation?
A: No. The right to dispose of the properties belonged to the donee. The donor’s right to give consent was merely intended to protect his usufructuary interests.
A limitation on the right to sell during the donors’ lifetime implied that ownership had passed to the donees and donation was already effective during the donors’ lifetime.
The attending circumstances in the execution of the subland ject donation also demonstrated the real intent of the donor to transfer the ownership over the subject properties upon its execution.
Q: Was the revocation made by Dan valid?
A: A valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable, except on account of officiousness, failure by the donee to comply with the charges imposed in the donation, or ingratitude. The donor-spouses did not invoke any of these reasons in the deed of revocation. (Sources: Sps. Estopa vs. CA, G.R. No. 111904, Oct. 5, 2000)