Title
Solis vs. Barroso
Case
G.R. No. 27939
Decision Date
Oct 30, 1928
Donation propter nuptias invalid due to lack of public instrument; Article 1279 inapplicable, not an onerous donation. Defendants absolved.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 27939)

Background of the Donation

On June 2, 1919, Juan and Maria executed a private document in which they donated specific lands to their son Alejo and Fortunata as part of their marriage arrangement. One key condition included in the donation was that should either donee predecease the donor, the surviving donee would retain half of the property while the other half would revert to the donor. Following the marriage of Alejo and Fortunata on June 8, 1919, possession of the lands was transferred to them.

Legal Proceedings Initiated

Alejo Lambino's death on August 3, 1919, shortly followed by the death of Juan Lambino, prompted Fortunata Solis to file a complaint against Maxima Barroso and the Lambino heirs, demanding a formal deed of donation that would transfer ownership of half of the donated property to her and a partition of the donated lands and their fruits.

Court's Initial Judgment

The lower court ruled in favor of Fortunata Solis, invoking Article 1279 of the Civil Code, which pertains to contract obligations. This article allows for the enforcement of formalities required by law once a contract becomes effective. The judgment ordered the defendants to execute a proper deed of donation in favor of Fortunata, transferring legal title to the portion of the property designated for her.

Critical Legal Analysis

In the appeal, the Supreme Court identified that Article 1279 was misapplied, asserting that the case concerns a donation propter nuptias governed by specific rules outlined in Title II, Book III of the Civil Code, specifically Articles 618 to 656. Article 633 stipulates that a valid donation of real property must be executed through a public instrument, a requirement not fulfilled in this case. As such, the court concluded that the donation was invalid and did not confer any legal rights to the donees.

Misinterpretation of Onerous Donation

The lower court's argument suggesting that the transaction is onerous was found faulty. The Court clarified that donations made in consideration of marriage do not equate to a "valuable consideration" as defined in Article 622 of the Civil Code. The Court emphasized that in donation propter nuptias, marriage serves merely as a conditional consideration, not an obligation that births the donation itself.

Reversal of Lower Court Decision

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment, holding that the donation was invalid due to a lack of formal requirements under the relevant sections of the Civil Code. Defendants were absolved fr

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.