You are on page 1of 1

RAMIREZ vs.

RAMIREZ
111 SCRA 82 CUEVAS vs. CUEVAS
GR No. L-8327; December 14, 1955
ISSUE:​ ​Whether or not the ground for the opposition is correct?
ISSUE:​ ​Whether or not the donation is a donation INTER VIVOS?
FACTS:
FACTS:
Jose Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in Spain leaving only his widow as compulsory heir. His
will was admitted to probate by the Court of First Instance. The administratrix of the estate submitted a On September 18, 1950, Antonina Cuevas executed a notarized conveyance entitled "Donacion
project of partition giving one part of the estate to the widow "en pleno dominio’’ in satisfaction of her Mortis Causa,​ " ceding to her nephew Crispulo Cuevas the northern half of a parcel of unregistered land.
legitime while the other part of the "free portion" to his two grandnephews, Roberto and Jorge Ramirez.
Furthermore, one third (⅓) of the free portion is charged with the widow’s usufruct and the remaining two Subsequently, on May 26, 1952, the donor executed another notarial instrument entitled
thirds (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Ramirez’s companion, Wanda Wrobleski, an Austrian. The "Revocacion de Donacion ​Mortis Causa​" purporting to set aside the preceding conveyance; and on August
grandnephews opposed the project of partition ​on the ground that the usufruct in favor to Wanda is void 26, 1952, she brought an action in the Court of First Instance to recover the land conveyed on the ground (1)
because it violates the constitutional prohibition against the acquisition of lands by aliens. that the donation being ​mortis causa​, it had been lawfully revoked by the donor; and (2) even if it were a
donation ​inter vivos,​ the same was invalidated because (a) it was not properly accepted; (b) because the
donor did not reserve sufficient property for her own maintenance, and (c) because the donee was guilty of
HELD:​ ​NO, the ground for the opposition is incorrect.
ingratitude, for having refused to support the donor.

The SC rules that ​the constitutional provision which enables aliens to acquire private lands
HELD:​ ​YES, the deed executed by Antonina Cuevas is a donation INTER VIVOS.
does not extend to testamentary succession for otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and
meaningless. Notwithstanding this, the SC upheld the usufruct in favor of Wanda because although it is a
It is apparent from the entire context of the deed of donation that the donor intended that she
real right, it does not vest title to the land in the usufructuary and it is the vesting of title to land in favor of
should retain the entire beneficial ownership during her lifetime, but that the naked title should irrevocably
aliens which is proscribed by the Constitution.
pass to the donee. It is only thus that all the expressions heretofore discussed can be given full effect; and
when the donor stated that she would continue to retain the "possession, cultivation, harvesting and all other
rights and attributes of ownership," she meant only the ​dominium utile​, not the full ownership. Had the
donor meant to retain full or absolute ownership she had no need to specify possession, cultivation and
harvesting, since all these rights are embodied in full or absolute ownership; nor would she then have
excluded the right of free disposition from the "rights and attributes of ownership" that she reserved for
herself.

You might also like