Preview

Transfers in Contemplation of Death

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
884 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Transfers in Contemplation of Death
Transfers in Contemplation of Death, Art. 728-731
ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ, 78 SCRA 245 (1977)
FACTS: Petition for Review on Certiorari of the decisions of the CFI of Bulacan
This is a case about donations inter vivos and mortis causa.
The bone of contention is Lot No. 2502 of the Lolomboy Friar Lands Estate with an area of 5, 678 sq. meters, situated in Sta. Maria Bulacan.
Sps. Gavino Diaz and Severa Mendoza executed a Deed of Donation in favor of their children, Olimpia, Angel, Andrea Diaz, and daughter-in-law Regina Fernando. In the deed of donation, the Sps. Donated 8 lots, with reservations on certain lots, to their children and daughters-in-law and with conditions that they are not allowed to alienate the same to 3rd persons while the couple are still alive and that they shall continue to administer the same until their death. The donees manifested their acceptance in the same deed of donation. When Gavino died, Severa executed a deed of donation in favor of Angel and Andrea, giving the siblings each a ½ portion of Lot 2377-A.
When Severa died, Andrea sued her brother Angel for the partition of Lots 2377-A and 2502. Teodorico Alejandro, the surviving spouse of Olimpia, moved to intervene claiming 1/3 portion of Lot 2502.
In his answer, Angel alleged that he had been occupying his share of Lot 2502 for more than 20 years. The intervenors claimed that the 1949 donation was a void mortis causa disposition.
The CFI ruled that the donation was a donation mortis causa because the ownership of the properties donated did not pass to the donees during the donor’s lifetime but was transmitted to the donees only ―upon the death of the donors‖. It, however, sustained the partition of Lot 2502 since it was an extrajudicial partition. Both parties appealed to the SC, Andrea contending that it is a donation inter vivos while Alejandro contending it to be mortis causa.
ISSUE: Whether or not the donation is a donation inter vivos or mortis causa.
HELD: Donation inter vivos

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    Janet (taxpayer) residing in Australia is named as the sole beneficiary of a property (1.85 hectares) with a large homestead as a result of the death of a relative on 7/10/2010. The property is not used for commercial purposes and at the date of death, the property was valued at $1.45million. Settlement took place on 21/12/2010. After moving into the homestead shortly after taking ownership, she planned to take a one-year trip which she had been planning for some time in late 2011. The taxpayer felt that the homestead was far too large for her (she is single),…

    • 2094 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Court analysis of this transaction in light of these eleven factors lead to conclusion that Mrs. Hardman's transfer of the Hale Field property to Hardman, Inc. was a sale rather than a contribution to capital. Since the trial court erred in relying on a sole factor and neglecting to consider fully the several other factors, all of which point to the opposite conclusion. Therefore, the decision of the district court was reversed and the case is remanded for a determination of the amount of excess taxes paid by the Hardmans and Hardman,…

    • 720 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    (Cheeseman2013) In the case of Cunningham v. Hastings, Mr. Hastings and Mrs. Cunningham, was an unmarried couple, purchased a home together. Mr. Hastings put $45,000 down payment toward the home out of his pocket. When it came to how the deed established the deed stated Hastings Cunningham as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The couple occupied the property jointly. When the relationship between the two ended, Mr. Hastings seized sole possession of the property. Mrs. Cunningham filed a complaint seeking partition of the real estate. Based on its determination that the property could not be split, the trial court ordered it to be sold. The trial court further ordered that $45,000 of the sale proceeds be paid to Mr. Hastings to reimburse…

    • 321 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    9) Mike transfers securities to an irrevocable trust and gives Rachel the power to determine who will receive the trust's income and assets. Rachel, her estate, and her creditors cannot be beneficiaries or receive the trust assets. Rachel has a general power of appointment.…

    • 9691 Words
    • 37 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    United States

    • 313 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Answer: A.J. does not receive the property because there wasn’t any legal documentation of what was agreed upon concerning the…

    • 313 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    When property was purchase by Joseph and Hellen Naab, there was a house and a small concrete garage. Evidence showed that garage was constructed 20 years prior to the Naab?s purchased of the property. Neighbors (The Nolands) had their property surveyed, and requested that the Naabs?s remove the garage since it encroached 0.91 feet over the property line.…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    LRWA carmichael analysis

    • 1136 Words
    • 3 Pages

    To determine whether a person has “possession” of a property the court considers four factors: (1) whether the buyer exercises control over the property adverse to the seller; (2) whether the buyer has an exclusive right to control the property; (3) whether the buyer pays for taxes and improvements, and; (4) whether the both parties publically acknowledges the transfer. Dawson v. Tumlinson, 242 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1951); Johnson v. Bridgewater, 140 S.W.2d 282 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940, writ dismissed); Sharp v. Stacy, 535 S.W.2d 345 (Tex. 1976); Thorton v. Central Loan Co., 164 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. Civ. App. 1942, writ refused). The court does not consider who occupies the property. Sharp, 535 S.W.2d at 348. The details of the oral agreement are also not considered. See Dawson, 242 S.W.2d 191; Johnson, 140 S.W.2d 282; Thorton, 164 S.W.2d 248; Id. Every factor is considered, but all of them need not be present. Johnson. Presently, Carmichael paid for taxes and improvements, but each other factor is at issue.…

    • 1136 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nevada does not recognize a deceased human body or its parts as “personal property”. It could not be concluded that Ricard’s organs were kept for illegal selling or other wrongful actions. The court dismissed the charge of fiduciary duty. But it was decided that the family should be awarded for the emotional distress the were put under.…

    • 627 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cooper V. Austin

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages

    * This is a will contest case involving a codicil to the Last Will and Testament of Wheelock A. Bisson, M.D., deceased.…

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    and a recreation hall with 76 acres of land for $38,000. The property was between the Redlands,…

    • 933 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts. Plaintiff and defendant lived together for seven years without marrying, with all property acquired during this time taken in defendant’s name. Plaintiff avers that she and defendant entered into an oral agreement where the parties would combine their efforts and earnings and share equally all property accumulated as a result of their efforts. Plaintiff agreed to give up a lucrative career as a singer and entertainer and assume the role of homemaker, with defendant agreeing to provide for all of plaintiff’s financial support. Defendant compelled plaintiff to leave his household in May of 1970, and continued to provide support to her until November of 1971. Thereafter, he refused to provide further support. Plaintiff brought suit to enforce the oral agreement, claiming that she was entitled to half the property and to support payments. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the defendant.…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Last Will and Testimate

    • 542 Words
    • 3 Pages

    I give all the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate, real, personal, or mixed, of whatever kind and wherever located, after the payment of debts, expenses, and taxes, as mentioned in Article I, and after transfer of my community property mentioned in Article II, subject to the laws of this state regarding community property, to my wife Elizabeth O. Smith, if she survives me. If she does not survive me, I give said residue to my children, John J. Smith Jr., Elizabeth O. Smith, and Bobby Smith.…

    • 542 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Milroy v Lord (1862)� the donor in this case used an inappropriate document to pass the interest to the relevant donee, court's decision was that this could not be an effective transfer of shares since the document was wrong and did not comply with the requirements of the bank to constitute the transfer. Milroy is the first case that presents the three different ways that a voluntary settlement may occur. First, by declaration of self as a trustee, where there is no need to transfer the legal title. In case that the land involved is not registered; the transfer of the relevant legal title to trustees must be transferred by deed and comply with S.52 LPA 1925. In registered land the trustees will become legal owners ones the transfer is also registered and comply with S. 27 LRA 2002. The second available way is by an outright gift and, the third way is by appointing someone else a trustee where the transfer of the legal title is necessary. Another particularly crucial point from this case is that it clarifies that if a failure occurs by one of the above ways then the settlement will not succeed through the other methods. The settlement that will occur depends from the nature of property that the donor wishes to transfer. Milroy v Lord (1862), Re Fry (1946), Jones v Lock (1865) and finally Richards v Delbridge (1874)� all these cases although are four different types of property that needed…

    • 1612 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    The unit consists of three chapters entitled “Assisted suicide: Multiple perspectives”, “Sales of Kidneys prompt new laws and debate”, “The gift of life: When one body can save another”. However, there are only two main issues being addressed in the unit namely assisted suicide and donating human organs.…

    • 2737 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Equity Law

    • 10224 Words
    • 41 Pages

    8 Key Topics for Revision • • • • • • • • Maxims Injunctions, particularly Interlocutory Quia Timet Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders Rescission Secret Trusts Charitable Trusts Resulting Trusts Trusteeship Tracing…

    • 10224 Words
    • 41 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics