n

Distinguishing Donations: Inter Vivos vs. Mortis Causa in Philippine Law

n

TLDR: This Supreme Court case clarifies the crucial difference between donations *inter vivos* (during life) and *mortis causa* (in contemplation of death) under Philippine law. The Court emphasizes that the donor’s intent and control over the property during their lifetime are decisive factors. A donation resembling a testamentary disposition must comply with will formalities to be valid.

n

G.R. No. 125888, August 13, 1998

n

SPOUSES ERNESTO AND EVELYN SICAD, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, CATALINO VALDERRAMA, JUDY CRISTINA M. VALDERRAMA AND JESUS ANTONIO VALDERRAMA, RESPONDENTS.

nn

INTRODUCTION

n

Imagine intending to gift property to loved ones, only to have it challenged in court after your passing. This scenario highlights the critical importance of properly classifying a donation under Philippine law. The case of Spouses Sicad v. Valderrama revolves around a deed labeled “Donation Inter Vivos” that the donor later attempted to revoke, claiming it was actually a donation *mortis causa*. This case underscores the legal ramifications of mischaracterizing donations and the Supreme Court’s approach to determining the true nature of such transfers. At the heart of the dispute was a parcel of land in Capiz, and the question of whether the transfer to the grandchildren was meant to take effect during the donor’s lifetime or only upon her death.

nn

LEGAL LANDSCAPE: INTER VIVOS AND MORTIS CAUSA DONATIONS

n

Philippine law, derived from the Civil Code, recognizes two primary types of donations: *inter vivos* and *mortis causa*. The distinction is not merely semantic; it dictates the validity requirements and irrevocability of the transfer. Understanding this distinction is crucial for effective estate planning and property transfers.

n

A donation *inter vivos* is made between living persons, taking effect during the donor’s lifetime and is generally irrevocable once accepted by the donee. Article 729 of the Civil Code, relevant in this case, outlines the requirements for acceptance of donations of immovable property, stating that it must be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document. Key characteristics of a donation *inter vivos* include:

n

n
• Irrevocability: Generally, once perfected, it cannot be revoked by the donor except for specific legal causes like ingratitude.

n

• Immediate Transfer of Ownership: Ownership typically transfers to the donee upon acceptance.

n

• Lower Tax Implications: Subject to donor’s tax.

n

n

Conversely, a donation *mortis causa* is essentially a testamentary disposition made in contemplation of death, akin to a will. It is revocable at any time by the donor and transfers ownership only upon the donor’s death. Its validity hinges on compliance with the formalities of a will as prescribed by the Civil Code. Characteristics of a donation *mortis causa* include:

n

n
• Revocability: Freely revocable by the donor while alive.

n

• Transfer Upon Death: Ownership transfers to the donee only upon the donor’s death.

n

• Higher Tax Implications: Subject to estate tax.

n

• Formalities of a Will: Must adhere to the legal requirements for wills to be valid (e.g., notarization, witnesses).

n

n

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the critical factor in distinguishing between these donations is the donor’s intent. Did the donor intend to transfer ownership immediately (*inter vivos*), or only upon death (*mortis causa*)? This intent is discerned from the nature of the disposition, the wording of the deed, and the surrounding circumstances.

nn

CASE SYNOPSIS: SICAD VS. VALDERRAMA

n

The saga began on December 11, 1979, when Aurora Montinola executed a deed explicitly titled