Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 304 views

    Manalo V de Mesa

    Uploaded by

    dayneblaze
    The document summarizes a court case from 1915 regarding a land donation. An elderly couple, Fernando and Placida, executed a private document donating their land to Gregorio and Leoncia. The donation was conditional on Gregorio and Leoncia bearing expenses if Placida died. After Placida's death, her estate administrator contested the donation's validity since it was not a public instrument. However, the court ruled the donation was onerous and valid, as the condition of bearing funeral expenses equaled the land's value, making it governed by contract law rather than donation law. Therefore, the private document was sufficient to establish ownership for Gregorio and Leoncia.

    Copyright:

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

    Manalo V de Mesa

    Uploaded by

    dayneblaze
    304 views7 pages
    The document summarizes a court case from 1915 regarding a land donation. An elderly couple, Fernando and Placida, executed a private document donating their land to Gregorio and Leoncia. The donation was conditional on Gregorio and Leoncia bearing expenses if Placida died. After Placida's death, her estate administrator contested the donation's validity since it was not a public instrument. However, the court ruled the donation was onerous and valid, as the condition of bearing funeral expenses equaled the land's value, making it governed by contract law rather than donation law. Therefore, the private document was sufficient to establish ownership for Gregorio and Leoncia.

    Original Description:

    Property Law

    Original Title

    Manalo v de Mesa

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case from 1915 regarding a land donation. An elderly couple, Fernando and Placida, executed a private document donating their land to Gregorio and Leoncia. The donation was conditional on Gregorio and Leoncia bearing expenses if Placida died. After Placida's death, her estate administrator contested the donation's validity since it was not a public instrument. However, the court ruled the donation was onerous and valid, as the condition of bearing funeral expenses equaled the land's value, making it governed by contract law rather than donation law. Therefore, the private document was sufficient to establish ownership for Gregorio and Leoncia.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    304 views7 pages

    Manalo V de Mesa

    Uploaded by

    dayneblaze
    The document summarizes a court case from 1915 regarding a land donation. An elderly couple, Fernando and Placida, executed a private document donating their land to Gregorio and Leoncia. The donation was conditional on Gregorio and Leoncia bearing expenses if Placida died. After Placida's death, her estate administrator contested the donation's validity since it was not a public instrument. However, the court ruled the donation was onerous and valid, as the condition of bearing funeral expenses equaled the land's value, making it governed by contract law rather than donation law. Therefore, the private document was sufficient to establish ownership for Gregorio and Leoncia.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 7

    BONIFACIA MANALO, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF

    THE DECEASED PLACIDA MANALO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,


    VS.
    GREGORIO DE MESA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
    20 Phil 496

    February 12, 1915

    FACTS:

    Old and incapacitated for


    work

    Fernando Regalado and


    Placida Manalo

    Executed a
    private
    document

    agree to donate the


    tract of land which they
    own
    Gregorio de Mesa and
    Leoncia Manalo

    Placida has been ill for over


    a year and she feels that
    her death is approaching
    Both of them are without
    children to inherit from them

    REQUEST:
    Donees to bear the expenses
    as would be incurred in case
    the donor Placida Manalo
    should die.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the donation is null and void because it
    was not made in a public instrument.

    RULING:

    The court held that it is a valid document because it is considered as an


    onerous donation, governed by the law of contracts and therefore a private
    instrument was sufficient.

    There can be no doubt that the donation in question was made for a valuable
    consideration, since the donors made it conditional upon the donees' bearing
    the expenses that might be occasioned by the death and burial of the donor
    Placida Manalo, a condition and obligation which the donee Gregorio de Mesa
    carried out in his own behalf and for his wife Leoncia Manalo; therefore in order
    to determine whether or not said donation is valid and effective it should be
    sufficient to demonstrate that, as a contract, it embraces the conditions the law
    requires and is valid and effective, although not recorded in a public instrument.

    Hence, the defendant in his own behalf and for his wife now possesses under
    title of owner the two parcels of land improperly claimed by the plaintiff Bonifacia
    Manalo, since he acquired them legally and by the means established by law for
    transferring and acquiring ownership.

    For all these reasons, whereby the errors assigned to the judgment appealed
    from are refuted, said judgment should be affirmed, as we do affirm it, with the
    cost against the appellants.

    QUESTIONS:
    When is a donation onerous?
    What is the difference between remuneratory donation of the first
    kind and the second kind?

    ANSWERS:
    In an onerous donations, there are burdens, charges or future
    services which are EQUAL in value to that of the thing donated.
    The difference is that, remuneratory donation of the first kind
    rewards PAST services, with no strings attached, meaning, the
    services do not constitute recoverable debts. On the other hand,
    remuneratory donation of the second kind rewards FUTURE
    services or because of certain future charges or burdens, when
    the value of said services, burdens, or charges is less than the
    value of the donation.

    You might also like