Per Shing Queto vs CA

1987
Oral Donation

Facts
1.

There was an oral donation made by a mother to her daughter

2.

It was made at the time the daughter is already married

3.

Later on this property was bartered by the spouses to a third person

4.

The wife was contending that it cannot be bartered since it is part of her paraphernal property
being donated to her by her mother

Issues:
1.

Is the oral donation valid?

2.

Was it a transfer of hereditary share?

3.

Was the land paraphernal?

Ruling
1. No, the oral donation is not valid.
Since the oral donation did not comply with prescribed formalities
It cannot be considered as valid donation inter vivos because it was not executed in a public
instrument (Art. 749, Civil Code),
Nor is it a valid donation mortis causa for the formalities of a will were not complied with.

2. No, it was not a transfer of hereditary share.

No, since it was made at the time the mother is still living.
Tthe contractual transmission of future inheritance is generally prohibited.

3. No, the land is not paraphernal, it is conjugal

Since it was shown that the spouses acquired the property through the mother of Restituta
through a sale, at the time they were already married
It is presumed conjugal since there is no showing that the wife has paraphernal property of
her own