ROMARICO G. VITUG VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO.

82027, 29 MARCH
1990 [183 SCRA 755]
Spouses Dolores and Romarico Vitug entered into a survivorship agreement with the Bank of
American National Trust and Savings Association. The said agreement contained the following
stipulations:
(1) All money deposited and to be deposited with the Bank in their joint savings current account shall
be both their property and shall be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by either or any of them
during their lifetime; and
(2) After the death of one of them, the same shall belong to and be the sole property of the surviving
spouse and payable to and collectible or withdrawable by such survivor
Dolores died naming Rowena Corona in her wills as executrix. Romarico later filed a motion asking
authority to sell certain shares of stock and real property belonging to the estate to cover his advances
to the estate which he claimed were personal funds withdrawn from their savings account. Rowena
opposed on the ground that the same funds withdrawn from the savings account were conjugal
partnership properties and part of the estate. Hence, there should be no reimbursement. On the other
hand, Romarico insists that the same are his exclusive property acquired through the survivorship
agreement.
ISSUE: Whether or not the funds of the savings account subject of the survivorship agreement were
conjugal partnership properties and part of the estate
RULING:
No. The Court ruled that a Survivorship Agreement is neither a donation mortis causa nor a donation
inter vivos. It is in the nature of an aleatory contract whereby one or both of the parties reciprocally
bind themselves to give or to do something in consideration of what the other shall give or do upon the
happening of an event which is to occur at an indeterminate time or is uncertain, such as death. The
Court further ruled that a survivorship agreement is per se not contrary to law and thus is valid unless
its operation or effect may be violative of a law such as in the following instances:
(1) it is used as a mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation;
(2) it is used to transfer property in fraud of creditors; or
(3) it is used to defeat the legitime of a compulsory heir. In the instant case, none of the foregoing
instances were present.
Consequently, the Court upheld the validity of the survivorship agreement entered into by the spouses
Vitug. As such, Romarico, being the surviving spouse, acquired a vested right over the amounts under
the savings account, which became his exclusive property upon the death of his wife pursuant to the
survivorship agreement. Thus, the funds of the savings account are not conjugal partnership
properties and not part of the estate of the deceased Dolores.