PUIG VS.

PENAFLORIDA (revocation)

Issue:

1. Are the 2 donations inter vivos or mortis causa? Are these donations revocable?
2. Was the donation of a portion of Lot 2053 covered by TCT 927 validated by par. 10 of the last will and testament of the
decedent?

Rules:
Bonsato vs. Court of Appeals. 95 Phil. 481
The Spanish Civil Code of 1889 (Art. 620) as well as the Civil Code of the Philippines (Art. 728), admit only gratuitous
transfers of title or real rights to property either by way of donation inter vivos or else by way of last will and testament,
executed with the requisite legal formalities. In the first case, the act is immediately operative, even if the actual execution
may be deferred until the death of the donor; in the second, nothing is conveyed to the grantee and nothing is acquired
by the latter, until the death of the grantor-testator, the disposition being until then ambulatory and not final.
Bautista vs. Sabiniano, 92 Phil. 244; Bonsato vs. Court of Appeals, supra
In dispositions mortis causa conveyance or alienation is revocable ad nutum, i.e., at the discretion of the grantor or so-
called "donor" simply because the latter has changed his mind.
Zapanta vs.Posadas, 52 Phil. 557
The specification in the deed of donation of the causes whereby the act may be revoked by the donor indicates that the
donation is inter vivos, rather than a disposition mortis causa.
Laureta vs. Mata, 44 Phil. 668; Concepcion vs. Concepcion, L-4225, August 25, 1952; Cuevas us, Cuevas, 68
Phil. 68
The designation of the donation as mortis causa, or a provision in the deed to the effect that the donation is "to take
effect at the death of the donor" are not controlling criteria; such statements are to be construed together with the rest of
the instrument, in order to give effect to the real intent of the transferor (Concepcion vs. Concepcion, supra; Bonsato
vs. Court of Appeals, supra)
Carlos vs. Ramil, 20 Phil. 183; Manalo vs. De Mesa, 29 Phil. 495
A conveyance for onerous consideration is governed by the rules of contracts and not by those of donation or Testament.
Art. 1256, Civ. Code of 1889; Art. 1308, Civil Code of the Philippines
The effectivity, compliance, or binding effect of contracts cannot be left to the sole will of one of the parties.
Analysis:
Carmen died without forced heirs. She was survived by her nephews and nieces. Carmen left a will and executed 2
notarial deeds of donation both in favor of her niece, Estela married to Mariano. One is entitled DONATION MORTIS CAUSA
which was executed on November 24, 2948 conveying 2 parcels of land. Some of the provisions of the deed are as follows:

1. Donor reserves the right to mortgage and even sell the properties subject of the deed of donation when and if she should need
funds to meet her own needs.
2. Donee shall cover expenses for medical treatment and hospital expenses and/or burial of the donor unless the Donor has own
funds. In which case said resources shall cover the expenses.
3. The transfer will take effect when the donor dies.
4. If the Donee dies before the donor, the donation will take effect in favor of the children. Don Mariano Penaflorida, the current
governor of Iloilo, shall assume the obligations of the Donee in this donation.
5. The Donee shall meet the expenses of the last illness of the Donor and bury the latter.
6. This deed of gift will be presented to the Register of Titles after the Donors death.

On December 28, 1949, Carmen executed another deed of donation entitled ESCRITURA DE DONACION MORTIS CAUSA.
She ceded and transferred to the done in the concept of donation mortis causa the following:

1. Whole of Lot No. 2054 covered by TCT No. 926

2. The totality of the secana and high portion of it that is not dedicated to sowing and cultivation of palay of Lot. No. 2053 covered by
TCT No. 927
3. Half of Lot No. 58 under the following conditions:
 a. If on the date of his death and there is no donor after past sold or transferred to other third parties or entities, half of said
Lot No. 58, the Donee is committed and forced to pay Caridad Ubalde P600 and the payment of this amount will be verified
on the date when the Donee takes possession of half of said Lot No. 58
b. Before his death, the Donor could alienate, sell, transfer or mortgage to any persons or entities the goods donated in favor
of the Donee in the concept of donation mortis causa
c. This writing of donation mortis causa will not be registered in the office of the Registrar of Titles but after the death of the
Donor.

Both donations were recorded in the corresponding registry of deeds after Carmens death. The will executed by Carmen on March
26,1957 was submitted by her cousins, petitioners in this case (Angeles Puig) to the CFI. The provisions of which are the ff:
I leave to Doa Angeles Ubalde, married to Don Francisco Puig, all the palayera portion of Lot. 2053 covered by TCT No. 927 issued
in my favor by the Register of Titles.

In relation with the lot donation, I have yielded and transferred in the concept of a donation mortis causa to Doa Estela Magbanua
married to Don Mariano Penaflorida the high and dry portion of the same lot that is not dedicated to cultivation and sowing of palay.

The petitioners are seeking the have the 2 deed of donations be set aside for lack of formalities.

The CFI ruled adversely to Estela holding that the 2 deeds of donation were invalid and have no effect for lack of testamentary
formalities.

Conclusion Issue #1:

The November 1948 donation should be held inter vivos even if it is designated as mortis causa.

In the case of Manalo vs. De Mesa, a conveyance for onerous consideration is governed by the rules of contracts and
not by those of donation or testament. To apply this in the present case, the conveyance has an onerous character when it
required the Donee to cover expenses for medical treatment and hospital expenses and/or burial of the donor unless the Donor
has own funds and when it required Mariano Penaflorida to assume the obligations of Estela in case she will die prior to Carmen.
This undertaking was assumed even if the properties donated would not go to him but to the children and descendants of Estela.
The obligations assumed by the donee and her husband would be without consideration. Having said that, it is governed by the
rules of contracts and it is valid although it is not recorded in a public instrument.

With regard to revocation, the donor has the freedom to revoke at any time the donation mortis causa. However when
Carmen stipulated in the deed that she reserves her right to mortgage or even sell the donated property when and if she
should need funds to meet her own needs, this stipulation became in conflict with her freedom to revoke a true
conveyance mortis causa. She could not simply mortgage or even sell her property for any other purpose and if it is shown that
she has funds to meet her needs.

The December 28, 1949 donation is a donation mortis causa. No proprietary right was intended to pass to Estela prior to
the death of Carmen.

Unlike in the previous donation, the designation as donation mortis causa is confirmed by the fact that no signs
contradict or limit the unqualified and unrestricted right of the donor to alienate the conveyed properties in favor of other
persons of her choice at any time that she should wish to do so;

Carmen did not wish to be bound nor did she want to lose her title over the property during her lifetime. There is no
donation inter vivos since none was intended and there is no donation mortis causa because the acts are intended to be
effective only after the death of the grantor and must be executed in the form of a last will and testament or else it will not
be legally valid. (donation mortis causa ang Dec 1949 donation pero there is no donation mortis causa kasi may absence ng legal formalities)

Conclusion Issue #2

As to the conveyance of Lot 2053, whether it was validated by Par. 10 of Carmens last will and testament, the declaration that
Carmen had conveyed said portion of the lot to Estela by donation mortis causa, validates the conveyance of Lot 2053. This portion
of the will is valid as an independent testamentary legacy.