GANUELAS, ET AL. vs HON. JUDGE CAWED, ET AL.

GR No. 123968
April 24, 2003

FACTS:

- On April 11, 1958, Celestina Ganuelas executed a Deed of Donation covering

7 parcels of land in favor of her niece Ursulina. However, on June 10, 1967,
more than a month before she died, Celestina executed a Revocation of
Donation.
- Ursulina had been sharing the produce of the donated properties with
private respondents Flores, et al. and in 1982, she secured corresponding tax
declarations in her name and refused private respondents any share in the
produce.
- Private respondents file a complaint alleging that the Deed of Donation was
void for lack of acknowledgment by attesting witnesses before notary public
and that the donation was mortis causa which failed to comply with Civil
Code provisions regarding formalities. They prayed for the return to them as
intestate heirs the possession and ownership of properties and cancellation
of the tax declarations.
- Petitioners alleged in their answer that the donation was inter vivos which
did not have to comply with the requirements and that the Revocation
document was null and void since the ground was not among those provided
by law and lastly, period has already lapsed within which to file appropriate
complaint to legally enforce revocation
- RTC held that the donation was mortis causa hence petitioners instantly
filed for a petition for review contending that the donation was inter
vivos which may be revoked only for reasons provided in Articles 760,
764, and 765 of the Civil Code

ISSUE:
- Whether the donation is inter vivos or mortis causa
(TN: this is actually the only issue in the case)

RULING:
- Court issued a Resolution on January 26, 1998 requiring private
respondents to show cause why they should not be disciplinary dealt
with or held in contempt for failure to submit the name and address of
their new counsel, private respondent explained that they were no
longer interested in pursuing the case and were willing and ready to
waive their rights over the properties subject of donation.
- In petitioners comment, they welcomed private respondents gesture
but pray for the sake of enriching jurisprudence, their petition be given
due course and resolved.
- The Supreme Court went on to discuss the difference between a donation
inter vivos and mortis causa and the applicable provisions under the Civil
Code together with the necessary formalities required by law.
- The trial court did not commit any reversible error in declaring the Deed of
Donation to be mortis causa.
- The petition was DENIED for lack of merit.