Case Digest (G.R. No. 179260)
Facts:
In Romarico G. Vitug v. Court of Appeals and Rowena Faustino-Corona (G.R. No. 82027, March 29, 1990), petitioner Romarico G. Vitug is the surviving husband of the late Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in New York on November 10, 1980, naming respondent Rowena Faustino-Corona as executrix of her Philippine estate. Pursuant to this Court’s earlier decision, Nenita Alonte and Vitug were appointed co-special administrators pending probate. On January 13, 1985, Vitug moved for authority to sell certain estate assets to reimburse alleged personal advances totalling ₱667,731.66—comprising ₱58,147.40 for estate tax, ₱518,834.27 for deficiency tax, and ₱90,749.99 “increment thereto”—which he claimed to have withdrawn from Savings Account No. 35342-038 at the Bank of America, Makati. Corona opposed, asserting those sums were conjugal partnership funds and part of the estate, and sought Vitug’s ouster for failure to inventory them. Vitug countered that a survivorship agreement executed onCase Digest (G.R. No. 179260)
Facts:
- Prior Proceedings
- The case arose from a suit on the probate of two wills of Dolores Luchangco Vitug (d. November 10, 1980 in New York), naming Rowena Faustino-Corona executrix.
- This Court previously upheld the appointment of Nenita Monte as co-special administrator alongside surviving spouse Romarico G. Vitug pending probate (Corona v. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 316).
- Motion to Sell and Opposition
- On January 13, 1985, petitioner Vitug sought authority to sell estate stocks and real properties to reimburse alleged advances totaling ₱667,731.66 (₱58,147.40 for estate tax, ₱518,834.27 deficiency tax, ₱90,749.99 “increment”).
- Vitug claimed withdrawal from Bank of America Savings Account No. 35342-038 were his personal funds under a June 19, 1970 survivorship agreement executed with his wife and the bank.
- Respondent Corona opposed, asserting those withdrawals were conjugal partnership funds and part of the estate, and moved for petitioner’s ouster for concealment and failure to inventory such sums.
- Trial Court Ruling
- The trial court validated the survivorship agreement as binding.
- It granted petitioner’s motion, authorizing sale of estate assets and directing application of proceeds to reimburse Vitug’s alleged advances of ₱667,731.66.
- Court of Appeals Decision
- Held the survivorship agreement a mortis causa conveyance not complying with Civil Code Art. 805 (will formalities).
- Alternatively deemed it a prohibited inter-spousal donation under Civil Code Art. 133.
- Set aside the trial court’s reimbursement order; directed provisional inclusion of Account No. 35342-038 in the estate inventory.
Issues:
- Whether the survivorship agreement is a mortis causa disposition or a valid aleatory contract.
- Whether such agreement is a prohibited donation inter vivos between spouses.
- Whether funds in Savings Account No. 35342-038 form part of the decedent’s estate or belong exclusively to the surviving spouse.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)