16 September 2018
Princess Remandaban Atty. Maria Lourdes P. Garcia
PUP Law, JD 2-1 Property
Hypothetical Cases
1. If I were the Judge, I would grant the motion to dismiss. In Garrido vs. CA,
the Court ruled that When the done fails to comply with the conditions, the
donor has the right to impugn the validity of the donation of the property
that the latter donated. In the instant case, D is merely the sole heir of B,
the donee. Hence, he has no legal capacity to sue C and to ask for the
annulment of the sale on the ground of the violations of the conditions on
the Deed.
2. If I were the Judge, I would rule in favor of the widow. and that Ms. Y was
deemed to be usufructuary. Under the law, a donation mortis causa takes
effect upon the death of the donor.
In the instant case, being such a donation, the right to revoke
remains with the donor or heirs of the donor. Further, it is still a donation
mortis causa although it is titled as “Donation Inter Vivos”. However, there
was no donation at all since there was no execution of a document in the
form of a last will and testament after the death of the donor.
3. The decision depends upon whether the child had a normal intra-uterine
life or intra-uterine life. Article 742 of the Civil Code, which pertains to
donations made to conceived and unborn child, should be read in relation
to Article 41 of the same Code, which speaks of the personality of the
child.
In the instant case, if the child had a normal intra-uterine life, then
the donation is absolutely valid, but if the child had an intra-uterine life of
less than seven months and did not survive for less than 24 hours, then
the donation is null and void. Hence, the contention of D is untenable if the
child been completely delivered from the mother’s womb; otherwise, it is
tenable.
4. Yes, Mr. A can recover the possession of the property since the donation
was onerous, which was executed for a valuable consideration. Under
Article 764 of the Civil Code, it provides that the donation shall be revoked
at the instance of the donor when the done fails to comply with the
conditions. In the instant case, the failure to fulfill the condition of
constructing a fraternity house in the property donated gives Mr. A the
right to revoke the donation and to demand its possession.
However, Mr. A may only acquire the value of the land donated if the
purchaser of the commercial center bought it in good faith. This is the
exception to the general rule.
5. No. in the similar case of Central Philippine University, the Court ruled that
the absolute acceptance and the acknowledgement of the obligation of
donee were sufficient to prevent the statute of limitations from barring the
action of donors. In the instant case, the four years prescription does not
apply as the donation is subject to a resolutory condition. Hence, the
opposition of the University on the ground of prescription and not using the
donated property other than the purpose intended is untenable.
6. No. Under Article 734 of the Civil Code, donation is perfected from the
moment the donor knows of acceptance by the done provided that the
done is not disqualified or prohibited by law.
In the instant case, Mr. S had no personal knowledge of the
acceptance of B due to the inability of the latter to execute acceptance
before the death of the former. Hence, the donation has become
inoperative since the acceptance should be made during the lifetime of Mr.
S and of B.
7. It is a Donation Inter Vivos because it is irrevocable. Under Article 729 of
the Civil Code, donation inter vivos takes effect during the lifetime of the
donor, though the property shall not be delivered until after his death.
In the instant case, the prohibition to alienate merely provides that
Andy has a lifetime usufruct although Bert can sell it. To avoid the breach
in the deed, Bert just have to wait for the termination of the lifetime
usufruct of Andy.
8. The donation is void. It is expressly provided by the law that the donation
of an immovable property must be in a public instrument. In the instant
case, a rice land that is donated is an immovable property, which requires
to be in a public instrument. Hence, it is still void although there is already
a perfected donation since there is failure to comply with the requirements
provided by law.
9. I would advise Maria that the donation is void because the acceptance
was not in writing. However, the argument for her to not be compelled to
return the car is by asserting ownership therein through acquisitive
prescription because five (5) years had already elapsed since it was
donated by Arnold.
10. If I were the lawyer of Agnes, I would adviser her that the donation is valid
if the baby had a normal intra-uterine life; provided that, under the law,
there was due acceptance of the donation made by her as being the legal
representative of the child.
On the other hand, the donation becomes inoperative if the child
had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months and died less than 24
hours after delivery.
Cases
1. Garrido vs. CA – When the done fails to comply with the conditions, the donor
has the right to impugn the validity of the donation of the property that the latter
donated.
2. Puig vs. Penaflorida – In case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed
donation inter vivos rather than mortis causa.
3. Central Philippine University vs. CA – Condition refers to the obligations or
charges imposed by the donor on the donee.
4. Republic vs. Silim – Onerous donations are governed by the laws on contracts
5. Quilala vs. Alcantara – Donation of an immovable property shall be made in a
public instrument.
6. Heirs of Bonsato vs. CA – Donation inter vivos vs. Donation mortis causa
7. Sec. of Education vs. Heirs of Dulay – Onerous donations are governed by the
laws on contracts.
8. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila vs. CA – Automatic revocation required
judicial intervention.
