The express irrevocability of the same (“hindi na mababawi”) is the distinctive standard that identifies that document as a donationinter vivos.

Significant to the resolution of this issue is the irrevocable character of the donation in the case at bar. In Cuevas v. Cuevas,^[12] we ruled that when the deed of donation provides that the donor will not dispose or take away the property donated (thus making the donation irrevocable), he in effect is making a donation inter vivos. He parts away with his naked title but maintains beneficial ownership while he lives. It remains to be a donation inter vivos despite an express provision that the donor continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the donated property while he is alive. In the Bonsato case, we held that:

(W)hat is most significant [in determining the type of donation] is the absence of stipulation that the donor could revoke the donations; on the contrary, the deeds expressly declare them to be “irrevocable”, a quality absolutely incompatible with the idea of conveyances mortis causa where revocability is of the essence of the act, to the extent that a testator can not lawfully waive or restrict his right of revocation (Old Civil Code, Art.737; New Civil Code, Art. 828).^[13]

Construing together the provisions  of the deed of donation, we find and so hold that in the case at bar the donation is inter vivos. The express irrevocability of the same (“hindi na mababawi”) is the distinctive standard that identifies that document as a donationinter vivos. 

 

 

SECOND DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 106755, February 01, 2002 ]

APOLINARIA AUSTRIA-MAGAT, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND FLORENTINO LUMUBOS, DOMINGO COMIA, TEODORA CARAMPOT, ERNESTO APOLO, SEGUNDA SUMPELO, MAMERTO SUMPELO AND RICARDO SUMPELO, RESPONDENTS.