181 Vita vs. Montanano

181. VITA vs.
MONTANANO
*defendants won
A complaint was filed before the CFI Laguna by plaintiff Nazario Vita, in his capacity as judicial administrator of the estate of deceased Edilberto
Vita, seeking to recover from defendants-appellants Soledad Montanano, Estanislao Jovellano and Estebana Jovellano the possession of three (3)
parcels of land and their annual yield since January, 1962 in the amount of P1,100.00 a year.
Plaintiff:
 Edilberto Vita, was the owner and possessor of these 3 parcels of land and he was enjoying the fruits therefrom. When he died
defendantsthrough stealth and strategy, took possession of the above-stated parcels of land and gathered the fruits therefrom and
refused to surrender the possession of these parcels of land
Defendants:
 deny that the three (3) parcels of land belong to the estate of Edilberto Vita.
 claim that the two of the 3 parcels of land to Soledad Montanano as these were conveyed to her by Isidra Montanano (her aunt) and
Edilberto Vita in a document signed and executed by them on November 22, 1938. However, all copies of said document were lost during
the last war. The 3rd parcel of land is owned in common by Soledad Montanano, her brother and sisters. It originally belonged to Francisca
Asilo but its ownership was transferred to them under the arrangement sanctioned by Edilberto Vita himself
Reply of plaintiff:
 Isidra Montanano and Edilberto Vita never executed any document and if they had, it was thereafter repudiated, canceled and destroyed,
which is why the 3 parcels of land remained in their possession
 Upon the death Isidra, who left neither descendants nor ascendants, her surviving spouse Edilberto succeeded her and took immediate
possession of her estate; and that from the time defendants took possession of the parcels of land and have gathered its fruits
Intervenors (brother and sisters of Soledad):
 filed jointly with Soledad Montanano, was admitted as their answer-in-intervention

 that they acquired ownership of the 3 parcels of land mentioned in the complaint, which are in the possession of Soledad Montanano by
virtue of a donation mortis causa executed by Isidra Montanano on November 22, 1938 or by a donation executed by her on December
20, 1940 which was confirmed by Edilberto Vita.
Reply of plaintiff:
 denied all the allegations contained in the answer-in-intervention and reiterated that there was no such donation executed by Isidra
 If such donation were really executed, she was forced to do so when she was not mentally in a position to execute and sign freely the
document
TC: plaintiff has not shown that the 3 parcels of land belong to the estate of Edilberto and likewise, that the defendants and intervenors have not
shown that the parcels of land covered in the counterclaim were validly donated to them . DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of a separate
proceedings in Court for the proper disposition of the estate of the deceased Isidra Montanano
ISSUE:
1) WON the 3 parcels of land are included in the estate of Edilberto Vita
2) WON acceptance is necessary in a donation mortis causa
3) WON donation dated December 20, 1940 is mortis causa or inter vivos
Held:
 the 3 parcels of land were paraphernal properties of Isidra Montanano, being supported by documentary and testimonial evidence (p. 48,
Record on Appeal):
o The 2 parcels of land supposedly received as donation by Isidra during her marriage should be classified as her paraphernal
properties, it being acquired by her through lucrative title (Art. 148, Civil Code)
o plaintiff's testimony that the third parcel of land covered in the complaint was inherited by Edilberto Vita from Isidra
Montanano is an admission that the said property was the paraphernal property of the latter
Defendants allege:
1) that a donation on Nov 22, 1938 was mortis causa and therefore need not be accepted
2) Dec 20, 1940 donation is a donation inter vivos
 Article 725 * of the Civil Code that acceptance is necessary in a donation applies to all kinds of donation. The law does not distinguish.
The rationale behind the requirement of acceptance is that nobody is obliged to receive a benefit against his will.
 deed of donation mortis causa of November 22, 1938 have been legally and validly executed, it cannot be given force and effect
as the acceptance is void and illegal in as much as they were made at the time of the execution of the document, not after the
death of the donor Isidra. A donation mortis causa takes effect only after the death of the donor, consequently it is only after
the latter's death that its acceptance may be made.
 donation on December 20, 1940 is inter vivos contrary to the view of TC that it is mortis causa
 From the provision of the deed of donation understood in its entirety. They were donating the entire lot to the defendants but while
Isidra and Idilberto is still alive, they will continue to own, take possession and use the land. It shows the intention of Isidra Montanano
to grant a donation inter vivos to defendants-appellants and intervenors-appellants.
 its meaning clearly appears to be that after the donor's death, the donation will take effect so as to make the donees the absolute
owners of the donated property, free from all liens and encumbrances
 Furthermore, the consideration of the second deed of donation is love and services rendered by defendants-appellants and
intervenors-appellants to Isidra Montanano and as ruled in other cases
o even if the donor says that the donation is to take effect after his death, when it is shown that the main consideration of
the donation is not the death of the donor but rather services rendered to him then the donation should be considered
as inter vivos and the condition that the donation is to take effect only after the death of the donor should be interpreted
as meaning that the possession and enjoyment of the fruits of the property donated should take place only after
donor's death
o notwithstanding the fact that the donor stated in said deed that she did not transfer the ownership, save upon her death,
for such a statement can mean nothing else than that she only reserved to herself the possession and usufruct of said
property, and because the donor could not very well guarantee the aforesaid right after her death

181 Vita vs. Montanano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

181 Vita vs. Montanano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

181 Vita vs. Montanano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

181. VITA vs.

Intervenors (brother and sisters of Soledad):

 filed jointly with Soledad Montanano, was admitted as their answer-in-intervention

2) WON acceptance is necessary in a donation mortis causa

3) WON donation dated December 20, 1940 is mortis causa or inter vivos

2) Dec 20, 1940 donation is a donation inter vivos

You might also like