Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    Jarabini Del Rosario Vs Asuncion Ferrer

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Garces-Songcuan
    1) Spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe executed an irrevocable donation mortis causa of a property in favor of their children Asuncion and Emiliano and granddaughter Jarabini. 2) Leopoldo later assigned his rights and interest in the property to Asuncion. 3) The court ruled the donation was actually an inter vivos donation, not mortis causa, because it required acceptance, was irrevocable, and transferred ownership immediately. 4) Therefore, Leopoldo's later assignment to Asuncion was void since he no longer had rights to assign after making an inter vivos donation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jarabini Del Rosario Vs Asuncion Ferrer

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Garces-Songcuan
    100 views2 pages
    1) Spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe executed an irrevocable donation mortis causa of a property in favor of their children Asuncion and Emiliano and granddaughter Jarabini. 2) Leopoldo later assigned his rights and interest in the property to Asuncion. 3) The court ruled the donation was actually an inter vivos donation, not mortis causa, because it required acceptance, was irrevocable, and transferred ownership immediately. 4) Therefore, Leopoldo's later assignment to Asuncion was void since he no longer had rights to assign after making an inter vivos donation.

    Original Description:

    property

    Original Title

    Jarabini Del Rosario vs Asuncion Ferrer

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe executed an irrevocable donation mortis causa of a property in favor of their children Asuncion and Emiliano and granddaughter Jarabini. 2) Leopoldo later assigned his rights and interest in the property to Asuncion. 3) The court ruled the donation was actually an inter vivos donation, not mortis causa, because it required acceptance, was irrevocable, and transferred ownership immediately. 4) Therefore, Leopoldo's later assignment to Asuncion was void since he no longer had rights to assign after making an inter vivos donation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    100 views2 pages

    Jarabini Del Rosario Vs Asuncion Ferrer

    Uploaded by

    Cecille Garces-Songcuan
    1) Spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe executed an irrevocable donation mortis causa of a property in favor of their children Asuncion and Emiliano and granddaughter Jarabini. 2) Leopoldo later assigned his rights and interest in the property to Asuncion. 3) The court ruled the donation was actually an inter vivos donation, not mortis causa, because it required acceptance, was irrevocable, and transferred ownership immediately. 4) Therefore, Leopoldo's later assignment to Asuncion was void since he no longer had rights to assign after making an inter vivos donation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Jarabini del Rosario vs Asuncion Ferrer

    Gr 187 056, Sepetember 20, 2010


    Facts:
    Spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe executed a document Donation Mortis Causa
    in favor of their two children Asuncion (respondent) and Emiliano and their
    granddaughter, Jarabini (petitioner) covering 126 sq meter lot.
    It is stated in the will that the Donation Mortis causa shall be irrevocable.
    The named donees signified their acceptance of the donation on the face of the
    document.
    Leopoldo, the donor husband, executed a deed of assignement of his rights and
    interest in the subject property to their daughter Asuncion (respondent) then
    later Leopoldo died.
    The petitioner Jarabini filed a petition for the probate of the deed of mortis causa.
    However, it was opposed by Asuncion invoking his father Leopoldos assignment
    of rights and interest in the property.
    RTC rendered decision finding that the donation was in fact inter vivos and
    rendered the subsequent assignment null and void. However, CA reversed the
    decision. Hence, present petition.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the document executed by Spouses Leopoldo and Guadalupe is a
    donation inter vivos?
    Held:
    Yes.
    A donation mortis causa has the following characteristics:
    1. it conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before death of the transferor;
    2. that before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at the
    will.

    3. that the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.

    The donors in this case of course reserved the right, ownership, possession and
    administration of the property and made the donation operative upon their death. But
    this court has consistently held that such reservation in the context of an irrevocable
    donation simply means that the donors parted with their naked title, maintaining only
    beneficial ownership of the donated property while they lived.
    Notably the three donees signed their acceptance of the donation which
    acceptance the deed required. This court has held that the acceptance clause indicates
    that the donation is inter vivos since acceptance is a requirement only for such kind of
    donations. Donations mortis causa being in the form of a will need not be accepted by
    the done during the donors lifetime.

    Since the donation in this case was one made inter vivos, it was immediately
    operative and final. The reason is that such kind of donation is deemed perfected from
    the moment the donor learned of the donees acceptance of the donation. The
    acceptance makes the done the absolute owner of the property donated.
    Given that the donation in this case was irrevocable or one given inter vivos,
    Leopoldo subsequent assignment of his rights and interest in the property to asuncion
    should be regarded as void for, by then, he had no more rights to ssign. He could not
    give what he no longer had. Nemo dat quod non habeat.

    You might also like