Aluad v. Aluad
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns ownership of two parcels of land, Lot Nos. 674 and 676. Matilde Aluad, who inherited these lots from her husband Crispin Aluad, initially adjudicated them to herself. She later executed a Deed of Donation inter vivos in favor of Maria Aluad, petitioners' mother, covering all six lots inherited from Crispin. This deed stipulated that the donation would become effective upon Matilde's death and would be rescinded if Maria predeceased Matilde. Matilde retained the right to use, encumber, or dispose of the properties during her lifetime. Subsequently, Matilde sold Lot No. 676 to respondent Zenaido Aluad and, in her last will and testament, devised Lot No. 674 to respondent, while devising other lots to Maria. 2. Procedural History: After Matilde's death in 1994 and Maria's death later that same year, Maria's heirs (petitioners) filed a complaint against Zenaido Aluad for ownership and possession of Lot Nos. 674 and 676. Initially claiming inheritance, they later amended their complaint to cite the Deed of Donation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them rightful owners and ordering the respondent to deliver possession. The RTC also granted a writ of execution pending appeal. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, holding that the Deed of Donation was mortis causa and thus invalid for failing to comply with the formalities of a will. The appellate court declared respondent the lawful owner of Lot No. 676 but did not rule on Lot No. 674, as Matilde's will had not been probated. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in classifying the Deed of Donation as mortis causa, in ruling that the respondent was the rightful owner of Lot No. 676 based on a sale from a donor who allegedly no longer had the right to sell, and in failing to declare them the rightful owners of Lot No. 674. They also challenged the appellate court's findings regarding the writ of execution pending appeal and the award of attorney's fees and costs.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Donation executed by Matilde Aluad in favor of Maria Aluad is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa, and if mortis causa, whether it complied with the formalities of a will. Whether respondent Zenaido Aluad is the lawful owner of Lot No. 676. Whether petitioners are the rightful owners of Lot No. 674, considering the validity of the donation and subsequent will. Whether petitioners acquired Lot No. 674 by acquisitive prescription.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the Deed of Donation is mortis causa, void for non-compliance with the formalities of a will, and that respondent is the lawful owner of Lot No. 676. The Court also held that petitioners could not claim Lot No. 674 by acquisitive prescription as the issue was not raised before the lower courts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the Deed of Donation and compliance with the formalities of a will: The Court held that the Deed of Donation was mortis causa, not inter vivos, based on its characteristics: it conveyed no title or ownership before the transferor's death, the transferor retained ownership and control, it was revocable at will, and it was void if the transferor survived the transferee. The stipulation "to become effective upon the death of the DONOR" and the reservation for the donor to "use, encumber or even dispose of any or even all of the parcels of land herein donated" clearly indicated Matilde's intent to retain ownership during her lifetime. As a donation mortis causa, the Deed of Donation was required to comply with the formalities of a will under Article 805 of the Civil Code, but it did not. It was witnessed by only two credible witnesses, not three or more. Furthermore, the witnesses did not sign the attestation clause, which is a separate and essential requirement. Additionally, the witnesses did not acknowledge the will before a notary public as required by Article 806, and the pages were not numbered correlatively in letters. On the ownership of Lot No. 676: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that respondent is the lawful owner of Lot No. 676. Since the Deed of Donation was deemed void for failing to comply with the formalities of a will, it transmitted no right to Maria. Therefore, Matilde retained ownership of Lot No. 676 and validly sold it to respondent. On the ownership of Lot No. 674: The Court held that Matilde validly disposed of Lot No. 674 to respondent through her last will and testament. As the Deed of Donation was void, it did not transfer ownership to Maria. Consequently, Matilde's subsequent devise of Lot No. 674 to respondent in her will was valid, subject to the condition of probate. On acquisitive prescription: The Court ruled that petitioners could not claim Lot No. 674 by acquisitive prescription. They had based their claim on inheritance from their mother, not on prescription. The issue of acquisitive prescription was not raised before the lower courts. The Court reiterated the general rule that points of law and theories not brought to the attention of the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as it would be unfair to the adverse party.
Main Doctrine
A donation that conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor, retains ownership and control of the property while alive, is revocable at will, and is void if the transferor survives the transferee, is a donation mortis causa. Such a donation must comply with the formalities of a will and must be probated to transmit any right.