Facts: Basilisa Comerciante, the mother of five including Apolinaria Austria-Magat (petitioner) and Florentino Lumubos (respondent), purchased a parcel of land in 1953. In 1975, Basilisa executed a notarized document, a “Kasulatan sa Kaloobpala (Donation),” to give the property to her four children, which included Apolinaria and Florentino, due to their good service and affection. She also executed a “Kasulatan,” stating that the title would remain in her possession while alive, and could not be encumbered or sold by her.
On February 6, 1979, Basilisa sold the same property to Apolinaria. Subsequently, TCT No. T-10434 was issued to Apolinaria. On September 21, 1983, the other heirs of Basilisa, acting through Florentino Lumubos and others, filed an action (Civil Case No. 4426) for annulment of TCT No. T-10434, reconveyance, and damages against Apolinaria. The trial court dismissed the case. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, declaring the donation inter vivos and the sale null and void, establishing co-ownership among the appellants and Appolinaria based on the 1975 deed of donation.
A detailed procedural posture of the case follows:
1. Basilisa executed the Kasulatan sa Kaloobpala (Donation) and Kasulatan.
2. Basilisa executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Apolinaria in 1979.
3. TCT No. T-10434 issued in Apolinaria’s name.
4. In 1983, respondents filed Civil Case No. 4426 for annulment of TCT No. T-10434, reconveyance, and damages.
5. On August 15, 1986, the trial court dismissed the case.
6. Respondents appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the decision on June 30, 1989.
7. Apolinaria petitioned the Supreme Court for review.
Issues:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting the donation as inter vivos, rather than mortis causa.
2. Whether the respondent Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the present action has prescribed under the statute of limitations.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The donation was determined to be inter vivos due to its irrevocable character during the donor’s lifetime, notwithstanding the clause that it would take effect upon the donor’s death. Moreover, the Court found no fraud that would warrant a shorter prescriptive period for the action for reconveyance, thus the ten (10) year period applies.
Doctrine:
1. An irrevocable donation during the donor’s lifetime is indicative of a donation inter vivos, even if the full benefits to the donee accrue upon the donor’s death.
2. Revocability is essential in donations mortis causa, whereas irrevocability is characteristic of donations inter vivos.
3. A donation inter vivos requires acceptance by the donees during the donor’s lifetime; such acceptance is not necessary for donations mortis causa.
4. Actions for reconveyance of property based on implied trust prescribe in ten (10) years from the issuance of title; this period does not apply where fraud is a basis for the action, in which case the action prescribes in four (4) years.
Class Notes:
Key elements or principles:
– Distinction between donation inter vivos and mortis causa: Compliance with formalities of a will, irrevocability during lifetime, and acceptance by donees.
– Prescriptive periods: 10 years for reconveyance based on implied trust; 4 years for actions involving fraud.
– Article 1144 of the Civil Code: Determines the prescriptive period for various actions, including obligations created by law.
– Article 764 of the Civil Code: Provides for revocation of donation upon noncompliance with conditions set by donor, which requires a court action within a prescriptive period of four years.
Historical Background:
At the heart of the case is a post-colonial Philippine legal system, which inherits both American and Spanish legal traditions. The Civil Code of the Philippines, drawing substantially from the Spanish Civil Code, places much emphasis on property rights and familial obligations, reflecting societal values at the time. The case underscores the importance of clear contractual language and the delineation between living and testamentary dispositions. The distinction between donations inter vivos and mortis causa in the Philippines harks back to civil law traditions which differentiate between acts performed during one’s life versus those that take effect upon death.
Leave a Reply