Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1928 > October 1928 Decisions > G.R. No. 27939 October 30, 1928 - FORTUNATA SOLIS v. MAXIMA BARROSO ET AL.

053 Phil 912:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 27939. October 30, 1928.]

FORTUNATA SOLIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAXIMA BARROSO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Mabanag & Primicias, Emiliano A. Ramos and Eugenio S. Estayo for Appellants.

Turner, Rheberg & Sanchez for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. DONATIONS "PROPTER NUPTIAS;" PROVISIONS APPLICABLE THERETO. — A donation propter nuptias, according to article 1328 of the Civil Code, must be governed by the rules established in Title II, Book III of said Code (articles 618-656). Article 633 provides that in order that a donation of real property may be valid it must be made in a public instrument. This is the article applicable to a donation propter nuptias in so far as its formal validity is concerned. The only exceptions to this rule are onerous and remuneratory donations, in so far as they do not exceed the value of the charge imposed, which are then governed by the rules on contracts (art. 622), and those which are to take effect upon the donor’s death, which are governed by the rules established for testamentary succession (art. 620).

2. ID.; VALIDITY. — In the instant case the donation propter nuptias did not become valid neither did it create any right because it was not made in a public instrument; and article 1279 of the Civil Code is not applicable because it refers to contracts, valid in themselves, and not to the form required for their validity, which they already have, but it simply refers to the essential requisite to make them effective.

3. ID.; CONSIDERATION. — In donation propter nuptias the marriage is really a consideration, but not in the sense of being necessary to give birth to the obligation, as is clearly inferred from article 1333 of the Civil Code, which makes the fact that the marriage did not take place a cause for the revocation of such donations, thus taking it for granted that there may be a valid donation propter nuptias even without marriage, since that which has not existed cannot be revoked. The marriage in a donation propter nuptias is rather a resolutory condition which, as such presupposes the existence of the obligation which may be resolved or revoked, and not a condition necessary for the birth of the obligation.


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


The spouses Juan Lambino and Maria A. Barroso begot three children named Alejo, Eugenia and Marciana Lambino. On June 2, 1919 said spouses made a donation of propter nuptias of the lands described in the complaint in favor of their son Alejo Lambino and Fortunata Solis in a private document (Exhibit A) in consideration of the marriage which the latter were about to enter into. One of the conditions of this donation is that in case of the death of one of the donees one-half of these lands thus donated would revert to the donors while the surviving donee would retain the other half. On the 8th of the said month of June 1919, Alejo Lambino and Fortunata Solis were married and immediately thereafter the donors delivered the possession of the donated lands to them. On August 3, 1919 donee Alejo Lambino died. In the same year donor Juan Lambino also died. After the latter’s death, his wife, Maxima Barroso, recovered possession of the donated lands.

The surviving donee Fortunata Solis filed the action, which is the subject matter of this appeal, against the surviving donor Maxima Barroso and Eugenia and Marcelina Lambino, heirs of the deceased donor Juan Lambino, heirs of the deceased donor Juan Lambino, with their respective husbands, demanding of the defendants the execution of the proper deed of donation according to law, transferring one-half of the donated property, and moreover, to proceed to the partition of the donated property and its fruits.

The court rendered judgment based upon article 1279 of the Civil Code granting plaintiff’s prayer and ordering the defendants to execute a deed of donation in favor of the plaintiff, adequate in form and substance to transfer to the latter the legal title to the part of the donated lands assigned to her in the original donation.

We are of the opinion that article 1279 of the Civil Code, relating to contracts, is not applicable to the present case.

We are concerned with a donation propter nuptias, which, according to article 1328 of the Civil Code, must be governed by the rules established in Title II, Book III of this Code, on donations (articles 618 to 656). Article 633 provides that in order that a donation of real property may be valid, it must be made in a public instrument. This is the article applicable to donation propter nuptias in so far as its formal validity is concerned. The only exceptions to this rule are onerous and remuneratory donations, in so far as they do not exceed the value of the charge imposed, which are then governed by the rules on contracts (art. 622), and those which are to take effect upon the donor’s death, which are governed by the rules established for testamentary successions (art. 620).

We have, therefore, a donation propter nuptias which is not valid and did not create any right, since it was not made in a public instrument, and hence, article 1279 of the Civil Code which the lower court applied is not applicable thereto. The last named article provides that, should the law require the execution of an instrument or any other special form in order to make the obligations of a contract effective, the contracting parties may compel each other to comply with such formality from the moment that consent has been given, and the other requirements for the validity of the contract exist. Suffice it to state that this article refers to contracts and is inapplicable to the donation in question, which must be governed by the rules on donations. It may further be noted, at first sight, that this article presupposes the existence of a valid contract and cannot possibly refer to the form required in order to make it valid, which it already has, but rather to that required simply to make it effective, and for this reason, it would, at all events, be inapplicable to the donation in question, wherein the form is required precisely to make it valid.

But the lower court states in its judgment that the present donation is onerous, and pursuant to article 622 of the Civil Code must be governed by the rules on contracts. This opinion is not well founded. Donations for valuable consideration, as may be inferred from article 619 of the Civil Code, are such as compensate services which constitute debts recoverable from the donor, or which impose a charge equal to the amount of the donation upon the donee, neither of which is true of the present donation, which was made only in consideration of marriage. The lower court insists that, by the fact that this is a donation propter nuptias, it is based upon the marriage as a consideration, and must be considered onerous. Neither is this opinion well founded. In donations propter nuptias, the marriage is really a consideration, but not in the sense of being necessary to give birth to the obligation. This may be clearly inferred from article 1333, which makes the fact that the marriage did not take place a cause for the revocation of such donations, thus taking it for granted that there may be a valid donation propter nuptias, even without marriage, since that which has not existed cannot be revoked. And such a valid donation would be forever valid, even without marriage, since that which has not existed cannot be revoked. And such a valid donation would be forever valid, even if the marriage never took place, if the proper action for revocation were not instituted, or if it were instituted after the lapse of the statutory period of prescription. This is so, because the marriage in a donation propter nuptias is rather a resolutory condition which, as such, presupposes the existence of the obligation which may be resolved or revoked, and it is not a condition necessary for the birth of the obligation.

The judgment appealed from mentions the decision of this court in the case of Torres de Villanueva v. Standard Oil Co. of New York (34 Phil., 370), which is inapplicable to this case. That was a case of arras offered in 1875, and it was held that its effects were to be determined by the laws then in force, and not by the Civil Code, which became effective later.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the defendants are hereby absolved from the complaint, without special pronouncement of costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


STREET, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I am compelled to record my dissent. A donation made in consideration of a marriage contracted by the donee, or donees, on the faith of such donation, is, in my opinion, made for a valuable consideration within the meaning of article 622 of the Civil Code. The contrary view seems to me to be based upon a process of reasoning more congenial to the spirit of the schoolmen of the middle ages than to the jurisprudence of the present epoch.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1928 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 28328 October 2, 1928 - BEATRICE BABCOCK TEMPLETON v. WILLIAM RIDER BABCOCK

    052 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 29010 October 2, 1928 - CITY OF MANILA v. ASUNCION MITCHEL

    052 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 29044 October 2, 1928 - GEORGE R. SAUL v. MAGDALENA HICETA

    052 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 29075 October 2, 1928 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ALFRED BERWIN & COMPANY

    052 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 29184 October 3, 1928 - AQUILINO F. PANDO v. CARMEN KETTE

    052 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 28613 October 5, 1928 - ORIA HERMANOS Y COMPAÑIA EN LIQUIDACION v. GUTIERREZ HERMANOS

    052 Phil 156

  • G.R. No. 28721 October 5, 1928 - MARTIN MENDOZA, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE GUZMAN

    052 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 28792 October 6, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORO RUBIA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 28896 October 10, 1928 - JOSE ATIENZA v. DOMINGA MANALOTO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 28595 October 11, 1928 - TANG AH CHAN, ET AL. v. EDUARDO B. GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 28863 October 11, 1928 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF BATANGAS

    052 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. 29120 October 11, 1928 - MIGUEL PEREZ v. JUAN BARCIA

    052 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 28864 October 13, 1928 - PAUL KRAPFENBAUER v. JUAN L. ORBETA

    052 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 28985 October 18, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACARIO SERA JOSEP

    052 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. 30270 October 19, 1928 - ANACLETA CORTES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. 29197 October 20, 1928 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GO CHONG BING, ET AL.

    052 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 29268 October 20, 1928 - TIBURCIO LUTERO, ET AL. v. ROSARIO ESLER

    052 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 28394 October 22, 1928 - ENGRACIO L. VALMONTE v. PEDRO VILLAROMAN

    052 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 29166 October 22, 1928 - AUGUSTO LOPEZ v. JUAN DURUELO

    052 Phil 229

  • G.R. No. 29179 October 22, 1928 - JORGE YAMBAO, ET AL. v. PO HUAT SUY, ET AL.

    052 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 29295 October 22, 1928 - J. M. PO PAUCO v. DOLORES SIGUENZA ET AL.

    052 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 27694 October 24, 1928 - ZAMBOANGA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC.

    052 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 28847 October 24, 1928 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ISIDORO ABAJA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 29009 October 24, 1928 - ESTANISLAO NICOLAS v. REMIGIO NICOLAS

    052 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 29027 October 25, 1928 - SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA v. FLORENCIO GONZALEZ DIEZ

    052 Phil 271

  • G.R. Nos. 29048-29 October 25, 1928 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. F. M. YAP TICO & CO., LTD., ET AL.

    052 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 29564 October 25, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FIDEL SASOTA

    052 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 30364 October 26, 1928 - JOSE MORENTE v. E. V. FILAMOR

    052 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 29077 October 27, 1928 - JUAN DE ROTAECHE v. "LA URBANA

    052 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. 29416 October 27, 1928 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GREGORIO NIEVA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 28609 October 31, 1928 - FLORENCIO GONZALEZ DIEZ v. ROMARICO AGCAOILE

    052 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 29481 October 31, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAMBAYA BAYAMBAO

    052 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 30188 October 2, 1928 - FELIPE TAYKO v. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO

    053 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. 29278 October 3, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU CHAI HO

    053 Phil 874

  • G.R. No. 28457 October 15, 1928 - COMPANY "BIGHANI v. PABLO PABLO

    053 Phil 886

  • G.R. No. 28920 October 24, 1928 - MAXIMO GUIDOTE v. ROMANA BORJA

    053 Phil 900

  • G.R. No. 29182 October 24, 1928 - LEONCIA VIUDA DE CHAN DIACO v. JOSE S. Y. PENG

    053 Phil 906

  • G.R. No. 27939 October 30, 1928 - FORTUNATA SOLIS v. MAXIMA BARROSO ET AL.

    053 Phil 912