Facts:
The litigation involves two deeds of donation executed on December 1, 1939, by the late Domingo Bonsato in favor of his brother Juan Bonsato and nephew Felipe Bonsato. The donations transferred several parcels of land located in the municipalities of Mabini and Burgos, Province of Pangasinan. The plaintiffs, Josefa Utea and other heirs of Domingo Bonsato and his wife Andrea Nacario, initiated the case on June 7, 1945, for annulment and damages, alleging that the donations were a product of inducement and deception, were mortis causa, and lacked the formalities required by law for testamentary dispositions.
The defendants, Juan Bonsato and Felipe Bonsato, claimed that the donations were executed in consideration of past services rendered by the defendants to the late Domingo Bonsato. The Court of First Instance ruled that the donations were executed while the donor was of sound mind and were donations inter vivos, but as the properties were presumptively conjugal, only an undivided one-half share could be validly donated.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which found the donations to be null and void for being mortis causa without the required testamentary formalities. A majority of the Court of Appeals held that the properties should be returned to the plaintiffs. The defendants sought review from the Supreme Court, contesting the appellate court’s interpretation of the donations as mortis causa.
Issues:
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the donations executed by Domingo Bonsato were inter vivos or mortis causa.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Supreme Court held that the deeds of donation were indeed donations inter vivos and not testamentary dispositions that required adherence to formalities prescribed by law for wills. The primary considerations were that the deeds lacked the essential characteristics of mortis causa transfers, such as retention of title by the donor until death, revocability at the donor’s will, and the void nature of the transfer should the donor outlive the transferee.
Doctrine:
The main doctrine established in this case is that a donation where the transfer of title is immediate, and where the transfer is irrevocable, is a donation inter vivos, regardless of any future effect the passing of ownership of the property might have upon the death of the donor. The Supreme Court clarified that donations that are to take effect after the donor’s death should not automatically be categorized as mortis causa if the donor retains no ownership or control over the property while alive and the transfer is not revocable.
Class Notes:
– Donations Inter Vivos vs. Mortis Causa: Characteristics that define whether a transfer of property is inter vivos or mortis causa include immediate transfer of title, irrevocability, and non-dependence on the donor’s death for validity.
– Art. 620, Civil Code of 1889: Articulates that donations effective upon the donor’s death are governed by the rules of testamentary successions.
– Art. 633, Civil Code of 1889 (Art. 749, New Civil Code): Specifies the solemnities required for inter vivos donations.
Historical Background:
The case validates the legal doctrine established by the Civil Code of 1889, which had merged the earlier mortis causa donations with testamentary dispositions, essentially abolishing the former as a distinct legal institution. By affirming the distinction between inter vivos and mortis causa donations, it reinforces the importance of donor’s rights and intentions in determining the nature of a donation against a backdrop of evolving civil jurisprudence in the Philippines.
Leave a Reply