Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
4. and that donor’s tax does not apply to sale of shares sold in
an open bidding process.
ISSUES
HELD: Yes.
Taking into account the foregoing rules, the Court adopts the
RTC’s and CA’s finding that between Esperanza and the
Victor YAM and Yek Sun Lent v CA and ManPhil earlier payment of 50k; this was reflected in the voucher
Investment notated “full payment of IGLF LOAN.”
9. RTC favoured private respondent and ordered petitioners
Facts:
to pay the balance; CA affirmed in toto.
1. May 10, 1979, parties entered into a Loan Agreement with
Assumption of Solidary Liability whereby petitioners were
Issue:
given a loan of 500,000PHP from private respondent:
12% annual interest; 2% monthly penalty; 1 ½% W/N petitioners are liable for the payment of the penalties
monthly service charge; and 10% attorney’s fees; and service charge.
Denominated – first Industrial Guarantee and Loan
Held and Ratio:
Fund (IGLF);
Secured by a chattel mortgage on the printing Yes, they are liable.
machinery in petitioners’ establishment;
2. A second IGLF load worth 300,000PHP was subsequently Article 1270(2) of CC provides that express
obtained by petitioners evidenced by two promissory condonation must comply with the forms of donation.
notes, dated July 3, 1981 and September 30, 1981. For Article 748(3) – donation and acceptance of a
this purpose, a new loan agreement was entered into by movable, the value of which exceeds 5,000.00PHP,
the parties containing the same provisions with the first must be made in writing, otherwise, the same shall be
one, except: void.
Article 417(2), obligations, actually referring to credits,
To the annual interest which was increased to 14%;
are considered movable property.
and the service charge which was reduced to 1% per
In this case, the alleged agreement to condone
annum.
266,146.88 of the second IGLF loan was not reduced
The deed of chattel mortgage was amended in writing.
correspondingly. Annotation of “full payment of IGLF loan”:
Merely states petitioners’ intention in making the
3. By April 2, 1985, petitioners paid the first loan of 500k. On payment, but in no way does it bind private
November 4, 1985, private respondent was placed respondent;
receivership by the Central Bank and Ricardo Lirio and Though it would be a different matter if the
Cristina Destajo were appointed as receiver and in-house notation appeared in a receipt issued by
examiner, respectively. respondent corporation, thru its receiver,
4. On May 17, 1986, petitioners paid partial payment of 50k because then it would be an admission against
on the second loan. They wrote to private respondent on interest;
June 18, 1986, proposing to settle the obligation. On July Petitioners should have asked for a certificate of
2, 1986, private respondent counter offered saying it full payment, as they did in the first IGLF loan
would reduce the penalty charges up to 140k if petitioners Contention that it was the Central Bank examiner
can pay on or before July 30, 1986. assigned to respondent corporation who signed the
5. As of July 31, 1986, petitioners’ liability to private voucher in question (so it should be valid as full
respondent was 727,001.35, broken down as follows: payment)
Prinicpal P 295,496.47 Examiner said she merely took note of the
Interest 165.385.00 amount and the check number indicated therein,
Penalties 254,820.55
she failed to notice that the amount was being
Service Charges 11,326.33
given in “full payment”;
TOTAL P 717,001.35
Examiner doesn’t have authority to condone any
On same date, petitioners paid 410,853.47 by means of a indebtedness, her duties being limited to issuing
Pilipans Bank check. Corresponding voucher was notated receipt, preparing check vouchers and
“full payment of IGLF LOAN”. documentation;
6. The amount of 410,853 was the sum of principal and Also, the corporation had already been placed under
interest less the partial payment of 50k. The private receivership since November 4, 1985, Sobrepeñas
respondent sent two demand letters seeking payment of had no authority to condone any debt since “the
the 266,146.88 balance but petitioners made no response. appointment of a receiver operates to suspend the
7. Hence, private respondents filed suit for collection of sum authority of a [corporation] and of its directors and
of money. officers over its property and effects, such authority
8. Petitioners’ Answer claimed that they had fully paid their being reposed in the receiver”;
obligation. They contended that sometime after receiving Petitioners must not feign ignorance since Mrs.
the July 2 counteroffer, petitioners met with Carlos Yam already testified that when sought the
Sobrepeñas, president of respondent corporation, who release of the chattel mortgage over their
agreed to waive the penalties and service charges if property, they were told only the CB would
petitioners would pay the principal and interest less the authorize the same because it is the receiver;
Contention that there were no received two letters –
finding of fact which the lower court found otherwise.
JUDGMENT: CA AFFIRMED
Maglasang vs Cabatingan It conveys no title or ownership to
the transferee before the death of
the transferor; or what amounts to
Facts the same thing, that the transferor
should retain the ownership (full or
Conchita Cabatingan executed 5 deeds of conditional naked) and control of the property
donation in favor of the following persons while alive
o Her brother, Nicolas Cabatingan That before his death, the transfer
o Petitioner Estela Maglasang should be revocable by the
o Merly Cabatingan transferor at will, ad nutum; but
Provided in the said donation are the following revocability may be provided for
o Donation for and in consideration of the love indirectly by means of a reserved
and affection of the donor to the donee power in the donor to dispose of the
o Donation to become effective upon the death properties conveyed
of the donor That the transfer should be void if
o That in the event that the donee should die the transferor should survive the
before the donor, the donation shall be transferee
deemed automatically rescinded and of no Case at bar, the following are indications of donation
further force and effect mortis causa
Conchita Cabatingan then died and her heirs, upon o That the donations do not contain any clear
learning about the existence of the donations, filed provision that intends to pass proprietary
before the RTC an action for Annulment and/or rights to Maglasangs prior to Conchita’s
declaration of nullity of deeds of donation and death
accounting o The phrase “to become effective upon the
o The heirs allege the following: death of the donor” admits of no other
donations were made through interpretation but that Cabatingan did not
sinister machinations and strategies intend to transfer the ownership of the
and taking advantage of Conchita’s properties to Maglasangs during her lifetime
fragile condition o Maglasangs expressly confirmed the
the documents are void for failing to donations as mortis causa in their
comply with the provisions of the acceptance and attestation clauses
Civil Code regarding formalities of o Expressly provided that the donations shall
wills and testaments considering be rescinded in case donees predecease
that the donations are mortis causa Conchita
o Petitioners Maglasang, on the other hand, That the donations were made in consideration of
contend that love and affection of the donor do not qualify the
Conchita freely, knowingly and donations as inter vivos because transfers mortis
voluntarily caused the preparation causa may also be made for the same reason
of the instruments In contemplation of death - meaning
Are donations inter vivos as they o That the full or naked ownership of the
were made in consideration of love donated properties will pass to the donee
and affection, and not of death because of the donor’s death
That the stipulation on rescission in Form of donation mortis causa
case they die ahead of Conchita is o Should partake of the nature of testamentary
a resolutory condition that confirms provisions
the nature of donation inter vivos o Must be executed in accordance with the
RTC decided in favor of the heirs requisites on solemnities of wills and
o Donations are mortis causa and therefore testaments
null and void for failure to comply with the o Civil Code provisions
requisites of Art. 806 on solemnities of wills Article 805. Every will, other than a
and testaments holographic will, must be
subscribed at the end thereof by the
Issue: WON the donations are mortis causa (Yes) testator himself or by the testator's
Ratio: name written by some other person
in his presence, and by his express
Donation mortis causa direction, and attested and
o The right of disposition is not transferred to subscribed by three or more
the donee while the donor is still alive credible witnesses in the presence
o Characteristics of the testator and of one another.
The testator or the person DEL ROSARIO vs. FERRER
requested by him to write his name
and the instrumental witnesses of G.R. No. 187056
the will, shall also sign, as
aforesaid, each and every page September 20, 2010
thereof, except the last, on the left
margin, and all the pages shall be
numbered correlatively in letters Facts:
placed on the upper part of each
page.
The attestation shall state the Spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe Gonzales executed a
number of pages used upon which document entitled "Donation Mortis Causa" in favor of their two
the will is written, and the fact that children, Asuncion and Emiliano, and their granddaughter,
the testator signed the will and Jarabini del Rosario covering the spouses’ 126-square meter
every page thereof, or caused lot and the house on it in equal shares. Few months after the
some other person to write his death of Guadalupe, Leopoldo, the donor husband, executed a
name, under his express direction, deed of assignment of his rights and interests in subject
in the presence of the instrumental property to their daughter Asuncion. He died in June 1972. In
witnesses, and that the latter 1998 Jarabini filed a petition for the probate of the deed of
witnessed and signed the will and donation mortis causa. Asuncion opposed the petition, invoking
all the pages thereof in the his father Leopoldo’s assignment of his rights and interests in
presence of the testator and of one the property to her. After trial, the RTC rendered a decision
another. finding that the donation was in fact one made inter vivos. On
Asuncion’s appeal to the CA, the latter rendered a decision
If the attestation clause is in a reversing that of the RTC. It held that Jarabini cannot, through
language not known to the her petition for the probate of the deed of donation mortis
witnesses, it shall be interpreted to causa, collaterally attack Leopoldo’s deed of assignment in
them. Asuncion’s favor. Hence, this instant petition.
Article 806. Every will must be
acknowledged before a notary
public by the testator and the Issue:
witnesses. The notary public shall
not be required to retain a copy of Whether or not the spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe’s
the will, or file another with the donation to Asuncion, Emiliano, and Jarabini was a donation
office of the Clerk of Court. mortis causa, as it was denominated, or in fact a donation inter
o Case at bar, although the deeds were vivos.
acknowledged before a notary public, the
documents were not executed in the manner
required by law. Hence, null and void.
Ruling: