Case Digest (G.R. No. 123968)
Facts:
Ursulina Ganuelas, Metodio Ganuelas and Antonio Ganuelas v. Hon. Robert T. Cawed, et al., G.R. No. 123968, April 24, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Ursulina Ganuelas, Metodio Ganuelas and Antonio Ganuelas sought review of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 29 decision dated February 22, 1996 in Civil Case No. 3947, which declared null and void a deed of donation executed by their aunt Celestina Ganuelas Vda. de Valin and ordered partition among intestate heirs; private respondents in the RTC action were Leocadia G. Flores, Felicitacion G. Agtarap, Corazon G. Sipalay and the Estate of Romana Ganuelas de la Rosa (represented by its administrator).
On April 11, 1958 Celestina executed a Deed of Donation covering seven parcels in favor of her niece Ursulina. The instrument expressly provided that the donation was "to become effective upon the death of the DONOR" and that if the donee predeceased the donor the donation "shall be deemed rescinded and of no further force and effect." On June 10, 1967 Celestina executed a document titled Revocation of Donation; she died on August 18, 1967 without issue. After Celestina’s death, Ursulina and the private respondents shared for a time in the produce of the lands, but in 1982 Ursulina obtained tax declarations in her name over the parcels and thereafter refused respondents’ demands for a share.
Private respondents filed suit in the RTC on May 26, 1986 seeking declaration of nullity of the deed as a disposition mortis causa that failed to comply with testamentary formalities, recovery/partition of the properties, cancellation of the tax declarations, and accounting for the fruits. Petitioners answered, contending the instrument was a donation inter vivos under Article 729 of the Civil Code (effective during the donor’s lifetime even if delivery of possession was deferred), that the Revocation of Donation was void for not resting on statutory grounds for revocation of inter vivos donations, and that any action to enforce the revocation had prescribed.
The RTC (Branch 29) in its February 22, 1996 decision held the deed was a donation mortis causa because (a) the provision making it effective only upon donor’s death showed intent for a postmortem disposition; (b) the clause rescinding the donation if the donee predeceased the donor was characteristic of mortis causa gifts; (c) the attestation clause referred to the instrument as a "deed of donation mortis causa"; and (d) the acknowledgment before the notary was defective (only donor and donee acknowledged), thus violating testamentary formalities (Article 806) and rendering the deed void. The RTC therefore declared the deed null and ordered partition among intestate heirs.
Pe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the Deed of Donation executed by Celestina a donation inter vivos or a donation mortis causa? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)