1

G.R. No. 187056 September 20, 2010 Del Rosario vs Ferrer

FACTS
Spouses G executed a "Donation Mortis Causa" the terms of which are as follows:
It is our will that this Donation Mortis Causa shall be irrevocable and shall be
respected by the surviving spouse.
It is our will that J and E will continue to occupy the portions now occupied by
them.
It is further our will that this DON!ION MO"!I# C$# shall not in any way
affect any other distribution of other properties belonging to any of us donors
whether testate or intestate and where ever situated.
It is our further will that any one surviving spouse reserves the right% ownership%
possession and administration of this property herein donated and accepted and
this Disposition and Donation shall be operative and effective upon the death of the
DONO"#.
!SS"#
Whether the disposition of the property is a donation mortis causa (effective upon
death), as in fact designated, or actually a donation inter vivos (effective during the
lifetime of the Donors)
$#%D
!" !S # D$%#"!$% !%"&' (!($S)
"hat the document in *uestion in this case was captioned "Donation +ortis ,ausa"
is not controlling) "his ,ourt has held that, if a donation -y its terms is inter vivos,
this character is not altered -y the fact that the donor styles it mortis causa)
!n #ustria.+agat v) ,ourt of #ppeals, the ,ourt held that "irrevoca-ility" is a
*uality a-solutely incompati-le with the idea of conveyances mortis causa, where
"revoca-ility" is precisely the essence of the act) # donation mortis causa has the
following characteristics:
/) !t conveys no title or ownership to the transferee -efore the death of the
transferor0 or, what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the
ownership (full or na1ed) and control of the property while alive0
2) "hat -efore his death, the transfer should -e revoca-le -y the transferor at will, ad
nutum0 -ut revoca-ility may -e provided for indirectly -y means of a reserved
power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed0 and
3) "hat the transfer should -e void if the transferor should survive the transferee)
"he ,ourt thus said in #ustria.+agat that the express "irrevoca-ility" of the
donation is the "distinctive standard that identifies the document as a donation inter
vivos)" 4ere, the donors plainly said that it is "our will that this Donation +ortis
,ausa shall -e irrevoca-le and shall -e respected -y the surviving spouse)" "he
intent to ma1e the donation irrevoca-le -ecomes even clearer -y the proviso that a
surviving donor shall respect the irrevoca-ility of the donation) ,onse*uently, the
donation was in reality a donation inter vivos)
"he donors in this case of course reserved the "right, ownership, possession, and
administration of the property" and made the donation operative upon their death)
5ut this ,ourt has consistently held that such reservation (reddendum) in the
context of an irrevoca-le donation simply means that the donors parted with their
na1ed title, maintaining only -eneficial ownership of the donated property while
they lived)
%ota-ly, the three donees signed their acceptance of the donation, which acceptance
the deed re*uired) "his ,ourt has held that an acceptance clause indicates that the
donation is inter vivos, since acceptance is a re*uirement only for such 1ind of
donations) Donations mortis causa, -eing in the form of a will, need not -e accepted
-y the donee during the donor6s lifetime)
7inally, as 8ustice 8) 5) 9) 'eyes said in :uig v) :e;aflorida, in case of dou-t, the
conveyance should -e deemed a donation inter vivos rather than mortis causa, in
order to avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the property su-<ect of the deed)