Quiz No.

15
 
Spouse Michael and Linda donated a 3 hectare residential land to the City of Baguio on the condition that the city
government would build thereon a public park with a boxing arena, the construction of which shall commence within 6
months from the date the parties ratify the donation. The donee accepted the donation and the title to the property was
transferred in its name. Five years elapsed but the public park with the boxing arena was never started. Considering
the failure of the donee to comply with the condition of the donation, the donor spouses sold the property to Ferdinand
who then sued to recover the land from the city government. Will the suit prosper? *
0/4
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above

Correct answer
No
Feedback
Answer: Bar Question (1991) – Ulep, p. 544-545

No. Ferdinand has no right to recover the land. It is true that the donation was revocable because of breach of the
conditions. But until and unless the donation was revoked, it remains valid. Hence, Spouses Michael and Linda had no
right to sell the land to Ferdinand. One cannot give what he does not have. What the donors should have done first was to
have the donation annulled or revoked. After that was done, they could validly have disposed of the land in favor of
Ferdinand. (Answer by Law Center)
 
In a private document, Fernando and Placida Manalo “donated” a parcel of land to a niece, Leoncia, on condition that
the funeral expenses of the “donors” would be shouldered by the donee. Is the “donation” valid although it was not in a
public instrument? *
2/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
 
The donor, after the donation was made, sold the property donated to another for failure to comply with the condition
imposed. Is the sale an act of revocation? *
2/2
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
A donor gave to X and Y (two friends) a piece of land in Forbes Park. Both were capacitated, and they accepted the
donation. In the deed of donation, the donor had provided for accretion. If subsequently the donor dies, and a day later,
X dies, will X’s share go to Y? *
0/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
1
None of the above

Correct answer
No
Feedback
Answer: Paras, p. 934

No. X’s share will not go to Y.

Art. 753, 1st paragraph of the NCC provides, “When a donation is made to several persons jointly, it is understood to be in
equal shares, and there shall be no right of accretion among them, unless the donor has otherwise provided.”

Art. 1015 of the NCC provides, “Accretion is a right by virtue of which, when two or more persons are called to the same
inheritance, devise or legacy, the part assigned to the one who renounces or cannot receive his share, or who died before
the testator, is added or incorporated to that of his co-heirs, co-devisees, or co-legatees.”

In the instant case, although the donor had provided for accretion, it cannot be applied here because there being no
predecease, incapacity, or repudiation. Thus, X’s share will go to his own heirs.
 
X has no child. At the time he gave a donation of P1,000,000, he had P10,000,000. Therefore, after the donation, he
had P9 million left. Later, he adopted a minor child. At the time he made the adoption, he had only P500,000 left.
Should the donation be reduced? If donation be reduced, how much is the reduction? *
2/2
Yes, the donation must be reduced by P500,000.
Yes, the donation must be reduced by P250,000.
 
Yes, the donation must be reduced by P100,000.
No, the donation must not be reduced.
 
H and W were husband and wife. W has a sweetheart S, who however never had any sexual intercourse with him. If S
gives W a donation, is it valid, voidable or void? *
0/2
valid
 
voidable
void

Correct answer
voidable
Feedback
Paras, p. 905
 
A donated to B. Later B tries to kill A. Under the law of succession, B would be incapacitated to inherit from A. Is the
donation to B void, voidable or valid? *
0/2
void
 
voidable
valid

Correct answer
voidable
Feedback
Paras, p. 910
 

2
Insane donor donates on January 1. Donee accepts on January 5. Donor becomes sane on January 7. Donor receives
acceptance on January 8, at a time when he was sane. Is the donation valid? *
2/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
 
A donated property to B, who later committed a crime against A. A then instituted criminal proceedings against B. In the
criminal proceedings, the civil action to revoke the donation was not included. B was convicted, but before A could
bring the action for revocation, he (A) died. May A's heirs still bring the action? *
2/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
 
Ildefonso Santiago sued the Republic for revocation of a deed of donation by him and his wife for failure of the latter to
follow certain terms of the donation (e.g., installation of lighting and water facilities, and the construction of an office
building and parking lot). Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the Republic cannot be sued without its
consent. Will the motion to dismiss prosper? *
2/2
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
D had an illness, and because he thought he was to die, he confessed before P, a priest. After the confession, D gave
a donation to P. Is the donation void, voidable or valid? *
2/2
void
 
voidable
valid
 
Margarita David donated to two adopted children certain properties, but reserved to herself the complete usufruct over
the properties. Moreover, she prohibited them to alienate or encumber said properties without her consent. Is the
donation inter vivos or mortis causa? *
0/2
inter vivos
 
mortis causa

Correct answer
mortis causa
Feedback
Paras, p. 892
 

3
A donated to B a house. But B later accused A of a crime. A could have revoked the donation, but although six months
had already elapsed since the accusation, A had still not brought the action to revoke. A then died. Can C, the heir of A,
successfully bring the action two months after A's death? *
2/2
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
A gave his diamond ring worth P10,000.00 to his friend B as a birthday gift, which the latter accepted with thanks. Two
weeks later, upon learning that B was courting his (A’s) girlfriend, A asked B to return the ring. May B legally refused to
return the ring? *
2/2
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
Donor donates on January 1. Donee accepts on January 5. Donor dies on January 8. Acceptance of donation is
received in donor's house on January 10. Was the donation ever perfected? *
2/2
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
A trustee donated more than 500 sq. meters of land pertaining to the trusteeship to the City of Manila. This was done
with court approval. The land donated was to be made a city street, and the trustee made the donation to relieve the
estate from the expenses and taxes attendant to the maintenance of a street. Is the donation valid?  *
0/2
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above

Correct answer
Yes
Feedback
Araneta v. Perez. Paras, p. 901
 
If a piece of land is given in naked ownership to A, and the usufruct to his unborn (and still unconceived) child, would
both donation be void? *
2/2
Yes
No
Only the donation of the usufruct would be void
 
none of the above
 
4
A writes a letter to B on June 1, 2003, in which the former states that he makes to the latter a donation or gift of a
certain sum of money (P800) which he may collect from the Bank of the Philippine Islands on June 20, 2003 in order to
celebrate his birthday. B receives the letter but does not answer. On June 20, 2003, B goes to the bank which hands
him the P800 donated as the Bank has orders from A to that effect. Does the donation produce legal effect?  *
2/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
 
A tried to kill B. But B did not know who the assailant was. Later, B gave A a donation. Is A capacitated to become a
donee? *
0/2
Yes
No
It depends
None of the above
 

Correct answer
No
Feedback
Paras, p. 910
 
On January 2, 1986, A executed a deed of donation inter vivos of a parcel of land to Dr. B who had earlier constructed
thereon a building in which researches on the dreaded disease AIDS were being conducted. The deed acknowledged
before a notary public was handed over by A to Dr. B who received it. A few days after, A flew to Davao City.
Unfortunately, the airplane he was riding crashed on landing, killing him. Two days after the unfortunate incident, Dr. B,
upon advice of a lawyer, executed a deed acknowledged before a notary public accepting the donation. Is the donation
effective? *
4/4
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
X and Y staged a daring bank robbery in Manila at 10:30 in the morning of a regular business day, and escaped with
their loot of two (2) bags, each containing P50,000. During their flight to elude the police, X and Y entered the nearby
locked house of A, then working in Quezon City office. From A’s house, X and Y stole a box containing cash totaling
P50,000 which box A had been keeping in deposit for his friend B. In their hurry, X and Y left in A’s bedroom one (1) of
the bags which they had taken from the bank. With X and Y now at large and nowhere to be found, the bag containing
P50,000 is now claimed by B, by the mayor of Manila and by the bank. B claims that the depositary, A, by force
majeure had obtained the bag of money in place of the box of money deposited by B. The Mayor of Manila, on the
other hand, claims that the bag of money should be deposited with the Office of the Mayor as required of the finder by
the provisions of the Civil Code. The bank resists the claim of B and the Mayor of Manila. To whom should A deliver the
bag of money? *
4/4
to the mayor

5
to the bank
 
 
A tried to kill B. Later B forgave A, and as a matter of fact gave him a donation. Is A capacitated to receive the
donation? *
2/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
 
Elated that her sister who had been married for five years was pregnant for the first time, Alma donated P100,000 to
the unborn child. Unfortunately, the baby died one hour after delivery. May Alma recover the P100,000 that she had
donated to said baby before it was born considering that the baby died? Stated otherwise, is the donation valid and
binding? Assume that the intra-uterine life of the child is more than seven months. *
0/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above

Correct answer
It depends
Feedback
Answer: Bar Question (1999) – Aquino, p. 237

Yes, if the donation was accepted by Alma’s sister. Article 742 of the New Civil Code provides that “Donations made to
conceived and unborn children may be accepted by those who would legally represent them if they were already born.”
Since the child had an intra-uterine life of more than seven months, it is considered alive at the time it is completely
delivered from the mother’s womb. In the present case, the baby died after one hour after it was delivered from the
mother’s womb, hence, the donation is valid.
 
A donated to B a parcel of land on September 8, 2003. On December 27, 2003, B sold the land to X. On January 2,
2004, B tried to kill A, but failed. On January 18, 2004, A sued for the revocation of the donation. The suit was
recorded. Will the action prosper? *
2/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
 
Carmelo & Bauermann, Inc. (Carmelo) used to own a parcel of land, together with two 2-storey buildings constructed
thereon. It entered into a Contract of Lease with Mayfair Theater Inc. (Mayfair-respondent) for a period of 20 years. The
lease contained a provision granting Mayfair a right of first refusal to purchase the subject properties. Within the 20-
year-lease term -- the subject properties were sold by Carmelo to Equatorial Realty Development, Inc. (Equatorial-
petitioner) for the total sum of P11,300,000, without their first being offered to Mayfair. Mayfair filed a complaint for
rescission of the contract of sale between Carmelo and Equatorial on the ground that its right of first refusal was
violated. Mayfair obtained a favorable judgment and the decree of rescission became final. When Mayfair tendered the
payment of the purchase price with Carmelo, Equatorial, on the other hand, demanded rentals from Mayfair alleging

6
itself as owner by reason of the contract of sale up to finality of the decision in the case filed by Mayfair. Is Equatorial
has the right to demand rentals from Mayfair? *
4/4
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
H and W were husband and wife. W has a sweetheart S, who however never had any sexual intercourse with him. If W
gives S a donation, is the donation void? *
2/2
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
Malabanan entered into a contract with the Board of Liquidators for the salvage of sunken surplus properties. Under the
contract, Malabanan was to pay the Government P90 for each long ton of surplus properties recovered. When did
Malabanan become owner of the salvaged properties? *
2/2
From the time he was able to salvaged them
 
From the time he paid the Government for them
 
In 1986, Jennifer and Brad were madly in love. In 1987, because a certain Picasso painting reminded Brad of her,
Jennifer acquired it and placed it in his bedroom. In 1990, Brad and Jennifer broke up. While Brad was mending his
broken heart, he met Angie and fell in love. Brad in his will, bequeathed the painting to Angie. Brad died in 1995.
Saddened by Brad’s death, Jennifer asked for the Picasso painting as a remembrance of him. Angie refused and
claimed that Brad, in his will, bequeathed the painting to her. Is Angie correct? *
4/4
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
A donated to X a parcel of land in 1980. The donation was made in a public instrument. The deed of donation was
entitled “Donation Inter Vivos” There is, however, a provision in the deed to the effect that, although the land donated
shall be delivered immediately to X upon the perfection of the donation with full right to enjoy all of the fruits thereof,
“title thereto shall pass to the donee only upon the donor’s death.” Upon the death of A, his widow and only heir, B,
brought an action for the recovery of the property on the ground that the donation is a donation mortis causa and not a
donation inter vivos. Will the action prosper? *
0/4
Yes
No
 
It depends.
None of the above

Correct answer

7
Yes
Feedback
Answer: Bar Question (1990) – Jurado, p. 385

Yes, the action will prosper. In Bonsato vs. Court of Appeals, and Howard vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court
declared that in order that a donation will be considered a disposition post mortem, it should reveal any of the following
characteristics:

1) Convey no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the transferor, or, what amounts to the same thing,
that the transferor should retain the ownership, full or naked, and control of the property while alive;
2) That before his death the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be
provided for indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of the property conveyed;
3) That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the transferee.
It is clear from the facts stated in the problem that the donation reveals the first characteristic. Hence, it is a disposition
post mortem. Therefore, in order that the donation can take effect, it is essential that it must be made in a will executed in
accordance with all of the formalities prescribed by law (Art. 728, CC). Since this requisite has not been complied with, the
donation in the instant case is void or inexistent.
 
A donated to B a parcel of land on September 8, 2003. On December 27, 2003, B sold the land to X. On January 2,
2004, B tried to kill A, but failed, On January 18, 2004, A sued for revocation of the donation. The suit for revocation
was recorded in the Registry of Property. Will the action prosper? *
2/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
 
A donor donated part of his present property to a friend such that he did not reserve for himself, even in usufruct,
sufficient means for his own support. The donor has no relatives who depend upon him for support. May the donation
be reduced on his own petition even if there are no relatives? *
2/2
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
 
Anastacia purchased a house and lot on installments at a housing project in Quezon City. Subsequently, she was
employed in California and a year later, she executed a deed of donation, duly authenticated by the Philippine
Consulate in Los Angeles, California, donating the house and lot to her friend Amanda. The latter brought the deed of
donation to the owner of the project and discovered that Anastacia left unpaid installments and real estate taxes.
Amanda paid these so that the donation in her favor can be registered in the project owner's office. Two months later,
Anastacia died, leaving her mother Rosa as her sole heir. Rosa filed an action to annul the donation on the ground that
Amanda did not give her consent in the deed of donation or in a separate public instrument. Amanda replied that the
donation was an onerous one because she had to pay unpaid installments and taxes; hence her acceptance may be
implied. Who is correct? *
4/4
Rosa
 
Amanda
 

8
A owes B P10 million. Later, A donated his land to X in a simple donation inter vivos. The value of the land is
P6,000,000. There was a stipulation in the deed of donation that X should pay A's debts. After the perfection of the
donation, A borrowed P4,000,000 from C. How much all in all must X pay? *
2/2
P14 million
P10 million
P6 million
 
P4 million
 
A wrote a letter to B on June 1, 1955, in which the former stated that he is giving the latter a gift of a certain sum of
money which he may collect from X on June 30, 1962. B received the letter but did not answer. On June 30, 1962, B
went to X who handed him the sum donated as he had orders from A to that effect. Does this donation produce legal
effects? *
2/2
Yes
No
It depends
 
None of the above
 
Donor donated land in a private instrument. After his death, his heirs executed a public document where the former
donation was ratified. Is this allowed? *
0/2
Yes
No
It depends
 
None of the above

Correct answer
Yes
Feedback
Yes, since it is as if a new donation was made. However, the ratification cannot have any retroactive effect, and creditors
of the donor cannot be prejudiced. The heirs who made the ratification cannot however, assert now any right to the
properties donated. Indeed the "ratification" serves as a "quit-claim" of their rights to said property. Abragan v. Centenera.
Paras, p. 926.
 
In the case of an onerous donation, if an agent or administrator without authority from the principal, accepts the
donation in behalf of the principal, would the donation be valid, rescindable, voidable, unenforceable, or void?  *
2/2
valid
rescindable
voidable
unenforceable
 
void
 
Domingo Melad owned a farm and a residential lot. He and his wife, have no children of their own, had taken into their
home as their ward the spouses Felix Danguilan and Isidra Melad. The latter was Domingo’s niece. The spouses Felix
Danguilan and Isidra Melad lived with Domingo Melad and his wife and helped Domingo with the cultivation of the farm.
Thereafter, Domingo executed a private document giving the spouses Felix Danguilan and Isidra Melad his two lots, on
the understanding that the latter would take care of the grantor and would bury him upon his death, which obligation the
9
spouses fulfilled. Is the donation of the two lots valid considering that the same were not embodied in a public
instrument? *
0/4
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above

Correct answer
Yes
Feedback
Answer: Rabuya, p. 761; Danguilan vs. IAC, 168 SCRA 22 (1988)

Yes. It is our view, considering the language of the two instruments, that Domingo Melad did intend to donate the
properties to the petitioner, as the private respondent contends. We do not think, however, that the donee was moved by
pure liberality. While truly donations, the conveyances were onerous donations as the properties were given to the
petitioner in exchange for his obligation to take care of the donee for the rest of his life and provide for his burial. Hence, it
was not covered by the rule in Article 749 of the Civil Code requiring donations of real properties to be effected through a
public instrument. The case at bar comes squarely under the doctrine laid down in Manalo v. De Mesa, 14 where the
Court held:

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.
 
A donated to B a parcel of land on September 8, 2003. On January 19, 2004, B sold the land to X. On January 2, 2004,
B tried to kill A, but failed. On January 18, 2004, A sued for the revocation of the donation which was annotated on
same day. Will the action prosper? *
0/2
Yes, but since the property was sold to a third person, A can recover from B the value of the property.
 
Yes, A can recover from X the donated property
No
None of the above

Correct answer
Yes, A can recover from X the donated property
Feedback
The suit for revocation will prosper and this time, the donor can get the property from buyer X because under the facts
given, it is clear that the sale is null and void, and X cannot be termed a purchaser in good faith.
 
The Roman Catholic Church accepted a donation of a real property located in Lipa City. A deed of donation was
executed, signed by the donor, Don Mariano, and the donee, the Church, as represented by Fr. Damian. Before the
deed could be notarized, Don Mariano died. Is the donation valid? *
2/2
Yes
No
 
It depends
None of the above
 
A, who resides in Manila, wrote to his friend B, who is residing in Cotabato City, stating in the letter that he (A) is
donating to him (B) one new car worth P500,000.00. Upon receipt of the letter, B, called A by long distance telephone
10
telling A that he is accepting the donation. The same day B wrote and mailed a letter to A accepting the donation.
Immediately after mailing the letter, B died of a heart failure. Who is entitled to the car now, A or the heirs of B?  *
2/2
A
 
Heirs of B
 
The records show that the lot in dispute was donated in 1939 by B to her daughter, C, a minor. The donation, which
was authenticated by a notary public, was accepted in the same instrument, although on another date and at a place
other than the place where the donation was executed, by A, mother of the donor and grandmother and acting guardian
of the donee. In 1945, B sold the same property to X. Because of the refusal of A to surrender the certificate of title, X
instituted the present action to recover title and possession of the property on the ground that the donation executed in
1939 is void and therefore, the sale of the property to him is valid and enforceable. Is the donation valid?  *
4/4
Yes
 
No
It depends
None of the above
This form was created inside of Mindanao State University - Main Campus.

 Forms

11