Está en la página 1de 2

TodayisSunday,November20,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L45724April27,1939

IGNACIODEGUZMAN,ETAL.,petitioners,
vs.
TEODOROIBEA,ETAL.,respondents.

BenitoSoliven,VicenteVelazquezandSixtoBrillantesforpetitioners.
AlbertoReyesforrespondents.

AVANCEA,C.J.:

ThisisapetitionforcertiorariagainstthedecisionrenderedbytheCourtofAppeals.

Inthiscasetheplaintiffsclaimthesixparcelsoflanddescribedinthecomplaint,andthedefendant,inturn,claims
bywayofcrosscomplaintthethreeparcelsalsodescribedinhisanswer.Boththesixparcelsoflanddescribedin
thecomplaintandthethreeparcelsdescribedinthecrosscomplaintwere,onMay3,1930,donatedbyModesta
Yangco to Juana Abella. Subsequently, however, that is on February 27, 1932, Modesta Yangco revoked this
donationbecausethedonee'shusband,TeodoroIbea,hadbeenspeakingillanddiscourteouslyofher.Onthevery
dateoftherevocation,ModestaYangcodonatedthesamepropertytohernephewIgnaciodeGuzman.

The question to be answered is whether Modesta Yangco, after having donated the property described in the
complaintandinthecrosscomplainttoJuanaAbella,couldstillrevokethisdonation.Ifthedonationisintervivos,
shecouldnotdosoexceptforbecauseestablishedbylaw.

Weareoftheopinionthatthedonationisintervivos.Thedeed,insofarasittouchesthisquestion,containsthe
followingclause:

I,ModestaYangco,widowandasexagenarian,residinginthemunicipalityoffSinait,ProvinceofIlocosSur,
PhilippineIslands,statethat:fromadesireandwishtoreciprocatethegreatpatienceandesteemwithwhich
IhavebeentreatedbyJuanaAbella,nowofageandmarriedtoTeodoroIbea,bothresidentsofthetownof
Sinait,IlocosSur,whomIbroughtupfromchildhoodtothepresent,andwhohasstoodbymethroughallmy
adversities,Iherebydonatetomyprotegee,JuanaAbella,sothatshemayholdthesameasherownand
always,allthelandsbelongingtomeanddescribedasfollows:

xxxxxxxxx

ItismywillanddesireunderthisdeedthatallthesepropertiesbeadministeredandhelpbythesaidJuana
Abellaintheconceptofowner,althoughitisprovidedinthisdeedthatalltherentaloftheselandsshouldbe
deliveredtomewhileIamliving,formyenjoymentanddisposalasImayseefit,but,uponmydeath,Juana
Abellamayenjoyallthefruitsorharvestoftheseproperties,withthepowertoadjudicatethesamebywayof
inheritanceanddisposethereofasshemaydeemconvenient.

A donation mortis causa is that which becomes effective upon the death of the donor. The aforequoted clause
clearly shows that the donation became effective immediately, independently of the donor's death. The properties
donatedwereturnedoverthedoneeforheradministrationandpossessionalwaysandasowner.Astothenaked
ownership, the donation is pure, actual. It does not impose any condition, it does not fix any period for its
transmission,itdoesnotinanymannerconditionitseffectsupondeath.Theprovisioninthedeedthattheincome
ofthelandsbedeliveredtothedonorforherenjoymentuntilshedies,doesnotaffectthecharacterofthedonation,
becausethelawpreciselyrequires(art.634oftheCivilCode),forthevalidityofadonation,thattherebereserved
to the donor, in full ownership or in usufruct, an amount sufficient to support her in a manner appropriate to her
station.
Furthermore,thedonationbeing,byitsterms,intervivosinaccordancewithlaw,thischaracterisnotalteredbythe
factthatthedoneestylesitmortiscausa.

Being inter vivos, the donation may not be revoked except for the causes provided by law (art. 648 of the Civil
Code),amongwhichisnotincludedthefactthatthehusbandofthedoneehasspokenillofthedonor,especiallyas
thisisnottheactofthedoneeherself.

TherevocationofthedonationinfavorofJuanaAbellabeingnullandvoid,theseconddonationofthesamelands
infavoroftheplaintiffIgnaciodeGuzmanislikewisenullandvoid.

The plaintiff's complaint and his defense against the crosscomplaint being predicated upon the donation of the
landsmadeinhisfavorbyModestaYangco,andsaiddonationbeingnullandvoid,andthatmadeinfavorofJuana
Abella being valid, the decision of the Court of Appeals is correct in dismissing the complaint and in ordering the
plaintifftodelivertothedefendantthethreeparcelsoflandclaimedbythelatterinhercrosscomplaintandtopay
herP300perannumfromtheyear1932untilthedeliveryofthelands,withinterestthereonat6percentperannum
fromthefilingofthecrosscomplaint.

As to the resolution of the Court of Appeals declaring that section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not
applicabletothepetitionfiledbypetitionersforthepurposeofhearingthecaseanew,wefindnoerrorthereinfor
thesamereasonsetoutintheresolution.

Thepetitionisdenied,withcoststothepetitioner.Soordered.

VillaReal,Imperial,Diaz,Laurel,andConcepcion,JJ.,concur.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

También podría gustarte