Scribd
Upload
80 views1 page

Cuevas vs. Cuevas (G.R. No. L-8327, Dec. 14,1955)

The document summarizes a 1955 Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding a land donation. Antonina Cuevas executed a notarized deed donating the northern half of her land to her nephew Crispulo Cuevas. Two years later, she attempted to revoke the donation. The lower court denied her attempt to recover the land. The Supreme Court ruled the donation was valid and inter vivos (during Antonina's lifetime), not mortis causa (upon her death). Though the deed mentioned the donation taking effect upon Antonina's death, the language irrevocably conveyed the naked title to Crispulo while Antonina reserved lifetime beneficial ownership and use. Therefore, it was an acceptable

Uploaded by

Abri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
80 views1 page

Cuevas vs. Cuevas (G.R. No. L-8327, Dec. 14,1955)

The document summarizes a 1955 Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding a land donation. Antonina Cuevas executed a notarized deed donating the northern half of her land to her nephew Crispulo Cuevas. Two years later, she attempted to revoke the donation. The lower court denied her attempt to recover the land. The Supreme Court ruled the donation was valid and inter vivos (during Antonina's lifetime), not mortis causa (upon her death). Though the deed mentioned the donation taking effect upon Antonina's death, the language irrevocably conveyed the naked title to Crispulo while Antonina reserved lifetime beneficial ownership and use. Therefore, it was an acceptable

Uploaded by

Abri
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

4. G.R. No.

L-8327 December 14, 1955 below rightly concluded that the deed of donation was a valid
ANTONINA CUEVAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRISPULO CUEVAS, donation inter vivos, with reservation of beneficial tit]e during
Defendant-Appellee. the lifetime of the donor.

Facts: Other issues:


 On September 18, 1950, Antonina Cuevas executed a 1. As to the argument that there was no sufficient acceptance,
notarized conveyance entitled "Donacion Mortis Causa," to respect the terms of the donation, and at the same time
ceding to her nephew Crispulo Cuevas the northern half of express gratitude for the donor’s benevolence, constitutes
a parcel of unregistered land located in Nueva Ecija. sufficient acceptance.
 On May 26, 1952, Antonia executed a notarized 2. Also unmeritorious is the contention that the donation is
"Revocacion de Donacion Mortis Causa to set aside the void because the donor failed to reserve enough for her own
preceding conveyance. support. She expressly reserved to herself all the benefits
 On august 26, 1952, Antonia brought action in the CFI to derivable from the donated property as long as she lived.
recover the land conveyed, on the ground that the During that time, she suffered no diminution of income. If that
donation being mortis causa, it had been lawfully revoked was not enough to support her, the deficiency was not due to
by her and that even if it were a donation inter vivos, the the donation.
same was invalidated because it was not properly 3. The donee is not guilty of ingratitude because the donee had
accepted. She also claimed that it was invoke due to her a total income of only P30 a month, out of which he had to
failure to reserve sufficient property for her own support himself, his wife and his two children. Evidently his
maintenance. She also alleged that Crispulo was guilty of means did not allow him to add the donor’s support to his own
ingratitude because of his refusal to support her. burdens.

CFI decision: denied the recovery sought by Antonia. Note: donation mortis causa are generally revocable during the
CA: forwarded the case to SC because the appellant raised only lifetime of donor even after the acceptance of donee.
questions of law.

Issue: Whether the donation was mortis causa.

Ruling: no, the donation was inter vivos.

Neither the designation mortis causa, nor the provision that a


donation is "to take effect at the death of the donor", is a
controlling criterion in defining the true nature of donations.
Where the donor stated in the deed of donation that he will
not dispose or take away the land "because I am reserving it to
him (donee) upon my death," he, in effect, expressly renounced
the right to freely dispose of the property in favor of another (a
right essential to full ownership) and manifested the
irrevocability of the conveyance of the naked title to the
property in favor of the donee. In the case of Bonsato v. Court
of Appeals, the Court held that such irrevocability is
characteristic of donations inter vivos, because it is
incompatible with the idea of a disposition post mortem.

In the present case, the decisive proof that the present


donation is operative inter vivos lies in the final phrase to the
effect that Antonia will not dispose or take away the land as
she was reserving it in favor of Crispulo. The entire context of
the deed of donation expresses her desire to retain the entire
beneficial ownership during her lifetime, but that the naked
title should irrevocably pass to the donee. When she stated
that she would continue to retain the "possession, cultivation,
harvesting and all other rights and attributes of ownership,"
she meant only the dominium utile, not the full ownership. Had
She meant to retain full or absolute ownership she had no need
to specify such rights, since all of these are embodied in full or
absolute ownership; nor would she then have excluded the
right of free disposition from the "rights and attributes of
ownership" that she reserved for herself. Hence, the Court

You might also like