CASE DIGEST: Villanueva v. Spouses Branoco

 

GONZALO VILLANUEVA, represented by his heirs, petitioner, vs. SPOUSES FROILAN and LEONILA BRANOCO, respondents

G.R. No. 172804                 |              January 24, 2011

FACTS:

Petitioner claimed ownership over the subject property through purchase in July 1971 from Casimiro Vere, who in turn, bought the said property from Alvegia Rodrigo in August 1970.

Respondents similarly claimed ownership over the property through purchase in July 1983 from Eufracia Rodriguez, to whom Rodrigo donated the Property in May 1965. The deed of donation, signed at the bottom by the parties and 2 witnesses, reads:

Xxx

xxx. It is now in the possession of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ since May 21, 1962 in the concept of an owner, but the Deed of Donation or that ownership be vested on her upon my demise.

That I FURTHER DECLARE, and I reiterate that the land above described, I already devise in favor of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ since May 21, 1962, her heirs, assigns, and that if the herein Donee predeceases me, the same land RUwill not be reverted to the Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ;

That I EUFRACIA RODRIGUEZ, hereby accept the land above described from Inay Alvegia Rodrigo and I am much grateful to her and praying further for a longer life; however, I will give one half (1/2) of the produce of the land to Apoy Alve during her lifetime.”

The trial court ruled for petitioner. The trial court rejected respondents’ claim of ownership after treating the Deed as a donation mortis causa which Rodrigo effectively cancelled by selling the Property to Vere in 1970. Thus, by the time Rodriguez sold the Property to respondents in 1983, she had no title to transfer.

The CA set aside the trial court’s ruling. The CA found the following factors pivotal to its reading of the Deed as donation inter vivos: (1) Rodriguez had been in possession of the Property as owner since 21 May 1962, subject to the delivery of part of the produce to Apoy Alve; (2) the Deed’s consideration was not Rodrigo’s death but her “love and affection” for Rodriguez, considering the services the latter rendered; (3) Rodrigo waived dominion over the Property in case Rodriguez predeceases her, implying its inclusion in Rodriguez’s estate; and (4) Rodriguez accepted the donation in the Deed itself, an act necessary to effectuate donations inter vivos, not devises. Accordingly, the CA upheld the sale between Rodriguez and respondents, and, conversely found the sale between Rodrigo and petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Vere, void for Rodrigo’s lack of title.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a valid donation inter vivos

RULING:

Post-mortem dispositions typically –

(1) Convey no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor; or, what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the property while alive;

(2) That before the [donor’s] death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed;

(3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.

[4] The specification in a deed of the causes whereby the act may be revoked by the donor indicates that the donation is inter vivos, rather than a disposition mortis causa;

[5] That the designation of the donation as mortis causa, or a provision in the deed to the effect that the donation is “to take effect at the death of the donor” are not controlling criteria; such statements are to be construed together with the rest of the instrument, in order to give effect to the real intent of the transferor; and

(6) That in case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed donation inter vivos rather than mortis causa, in order to avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the property subject of the deed.

It is immediately apparent that Rodrigo passed naked title to Rodriguez under a perfected donation inter vivos. First. Rodrigo stipulated that “if the herein Donee predeceases me, the [Property] will not be reverted to the Donor, but will be inherited by the heirs of x x x Rodriguez,” signaling the irrevocability of the passage of title to Rodriguez’s estate, waiving Rodrigo’s right to reclaim title. This transfer of title was perfected the moment Rodrigo learned of Rodriguez’s acceptance of the disposition which, being reflected in the Deed, took place on the day of its execution on 3 May 1965. Rodrigo’s acceptance of the transfer underscores its essence as a gift in presenti, not in futuro, as only donations inter vivos need acceptance by the recipient.

Second. What Rodrigo reserved for herself was only the beneficial title to the Property, evident from Rodriguez’s undertaking to “give one [half] x x x of the produce of the land to Apoy Alve during her lifetime.” Thus, the Deed’s stipulation that “the ownership shall be vested on Rodriguez upon my demise,” taking into account the non-reversion clause, could only refer to Rodrigo’s beneficial title.

Third. The existence of consideration other than the donor’s death, such as the donor’s love and affection to the donee and the services the latter rendered, while also true of devises, nevertheless “corroborates the express irrevocability of x x x [inter vivos] transfers.”