1. vitug vs. ca full

8/12/2019 1. Vitug vs. CA Full

1/6

G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990

ROMARICO G. VITUG, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEAL a!" RO#ENA FAUTINO$CORONA, respondents.

Rufino B. Javier Law Office for petitioner.

Quisumbing, Torres & Evangelista for private respondent.

ARMIENTO, J.:

This case is a chapter in an earlier suit decided by this Court 1involving the probate ofthe two wills of the late Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in New York, . !."., onNove#ber $%, $&'%, na#ing private respondent (owena )austino*Corona e+ecutri+. n our saiddecision, we upheld the appoint#ent of Nenita "lonte as co*special ad#inistrator of -rs. Vitugsestate with her /-rs. Vitugs0 widower, petitioner (o#arico 1. Vitug, pending probate.

2n 3anuary $4, $&'5, (o#arico 1. Vitug filed a #otion asking for authority fro# the probatecourt to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedlyhis advances to the estate in the su# of 6778,84$.77, plus interests, which he clai#ed werepersonal funds. "s found by the Court of "ppeals, 2 the alleged advances consisted of65',$98.9% spent for the pay#ent of estate ta+, 65$','49.:8 as deficiency estate ta+, and6&%,89&.&& as ;incre#ent thereto.; % "ccording to -r. Vitug, he withdrew the su#s of65$','49.:8 and 6&%,89&.&& fro# savings account No. 4549:*%4' of the uestion for inventory and for ;conceal#entof funds belonging to the estate.; &

Vitug insists that the said funds are his e+clusive property having ac>uired the sa#e through asurvivorship agree#ent e+ecuted with his late wife and the bank on 3une $&, $&8%. Theagree#ent provides?

@e hereby agree with each other and with the


2/6

be the sole property of the survivor or survivors, and shall be payable to andcollectible or withdrawable by such survivor or survivors.

@e further agree with each other and the uestion is not, first of all, one of mortis causa,which should be e#bodied ina will. " will has been defined as ;a personal, sole#n, revocable and free act by which acapacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or co#plies with duties totake effect after his death.; 1&n other words, the be>uest or device #ust pertain to the testator.1'

n this case, the #onies sub=ect of savings account No. 4549:*%4' were in the nature ofcon=ugal funds n the case relied on, Rivera v. eople!s Ban" and Trust #o., 1(we re=ectedclai#s that a survivorship agree#ent purports to deliver one partys separate properties in favorof the other, but si#ply, their)o*!+ ho"*!-?

+++ +++ +++


3/6

... !uch conclusion is evidently predicated on the assu#ption that !tephensonwas the e+clusive owner of the funds*deposited in the bank, which assu#ptionwas in turn based on the facts /$0 that the account was originally opened in thena#e of !tephenson alone and /:0 that "na (ivera ;served only as house#aid ofthe deceased.; uently happens that a person deposits #oney inthe bank in the na#e of another and in the instant case it also appears that "na

(ivera served her #aster for about nineteen years without actually receiving hersalary fro# hi#. The fact that subse>uently !tephenson transferred the accountto the na#e of hi#self andEor "na (ivera and e+ecuted with the latter thesurvivorship agree#ent in >uestion although there was no relation of kinshipbetween the# but only that of #aster and servant, nullifies the assu#ption that!tephenson was the e+clusive owner of the bank account. n the absence, then,of clear proof to the contrary, we #ust give full faith and credit to the certificate ofdeposit which recites in effect that the funds in >uestion belonged to Bdgar!tephenson and "na (ivera that they were =oint /and several0 owners thereofand that either of the# could withdraw any part or the whole of said accountduring the lifeti#e of both, and the balance, if any, upon the death of either,belonged to the survivor. 17

+++ +++ +++

n $acam v. %atmaitan,18it was held?

+++ +++ +++

This Court is of the opinion that B+hibit C is an aleatory contract whereby,according to article $8&% of the Civil Code, one of the parties or both reciprocallybind the#selves to give or do so#ething as an e>uivalent for that which the otherparty is to give or do in case of the occurrence of an event which is uncertain or

will happen at an indeter#inate ti#e. "s already stated, Leonarda was the ownerof the house and 3uana of the uired the ownership of the house, inthe sa#e #anner as Leonarda would have ac>uired the ownership of theauto#obile and of the furniture if 3uana had died first. 19

+++ +++ +++

There is no showing that the funds e+clusively belonged to one party, and hence it #ust bepresu#ed to be con=ugal, having been ac>uired during the e+istence of the #arita. relations. 20

Neither is the survivorship agree#ent a donation inter vivos,for obvious reasons, because itwas to take effect after the death of one party. !econdly, it is not a donation between thespouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouses own properties to the other.


4/6

t is also our opinion that the agree#ent involves no #odification petition of the con=ugalpartnership, as held by the Court of "ppeals, 21by ;#ere stipulation; 22and that it is no ;cloak; 2%

to circu#vent the law on con=ugal property relations. Certainly, the spouses are not prohibitedby law to invest con=ugal property, say, by way of a =oint and several bank account, #oreco##only deno#inated in banking parlance as an ;andEor; account. n the case at bar, whenthe spouses Vitug opened savings account No. 4549:*%4', they #erely put what rightfully

belonged to the# in a #oney*#aking venture. They did not dispose of it in favor of the other,which would have arguably been sanctionable as a prohibited donation. "nd since the fundswere con=ugal, it can not be said that one spouse could have pressured the other in placing hisor her deposits in the #oney pool.

The validity of the contract see#s debatable by reason of its ;survivor*take*all; feature, but inreality, that contract i#posed a #ere obligation with a ter#, the ter# being death. !uchagree#ents are per#itted by the Civil Code. 2&

nder "rticle :%$% of the Code?

"(T. :%$%. uoted provision, the fulfill#ent of an aleatory contract depends on either thehappening of an event which is /$0 ;uncertain,; /:0 ;which is to occur at an indeter#inate ti#e.;" survivorship agree#ent, the sale of a sweepstake ticket, a transaction stipulating on the valueof currency, and insurance have been held to fall under the first category, while a contract forlife annuity or pension under "rticle :%:$, et seuentia, has been categoriFed under the second.2'n either case, the ele#ent of risk is present. n the case at bar, the risk was the death of oneparty and survivorship of the other.

owever, as we have warned?

+++ +++ +++

B/+ a+ho/-h +h /r*orh* a-r3!+ * r !o+ co!+rar4 +oa5 *+ ora+*o! or 66c+ 3a4 *oa+* o6 +h a5. For *!+a!c, *6*+ ho5! *! a -*! ca +ha+ /ch a-r3!+ * a 3r coa +oh*" a! *!o66*c*o/ "o!a+*o!, +o +ra!6r ror+4 *! 6ra/" o6cr"*+or, or +o "6a+ +h -*+*3 o6 a 6orc" h*r, *+ 3a4 aa*"a!" a!!/" /o! /ch -ro/!". No /ch *c ha ! *3/+"a!" +a*h" a-a*!+ +h a-r3!+ *!o" *! +h* ca. 2(

+++ +++ +++

There is no de#onstration here that the survivorship agree#ent had been e+ecuted for suchunlawful purposes, or, as held by the respondent court, in order to frustrate our laws on wills,donations, and con=ugal partnership.


5/6

The conclusion is accordingly unavoidable that -rs. Vitug having predeceased her husband, thelatter has ac>uired upon her death a vested right over the a#ounts under savings account No.4549:*%4' of the


6/6

$' -upra.

$& -upra., $&%*$&$.

:% CVL C2DB, supra, art. $7%.

:$ n the words of the "ppellate Court? ;!ince private respondent and his late wife did not enter into a #arriage

settle#ent before #arriage, their property relationship was that of con=ugal partnership governed by the CivilCode. The syste# of con=ugal partnership prohibits, as already #entioned, donation between the spousesduring the #arriage, e+cept that which takes effect after the death of the donor, in which case, the donationshall co#ply with the for#alities of a will /"rts. $44, 8:', '%50. To allow the prohibited donation by giving it acloak of aleatory contract would sanction a /#odification0 of a #arriage settle#ent during #arriage by a #erestipulation. "s #andated by "rt. 5:, the nature, conse>uences and incidents of #arriage, which is not a #erecontract but an inviolable social institution are governed by law, and not sub=ect to stipulation.;

:: d.

:4 d.

:9 CVL C2DB, supra., art. $$&4.

:5 V 6"("!, CVL C2DB 2) TB 6L66NB!, 8': /$&'7 ed.0

:7 (ivera,supra,59'.

1. vitug vs. ca full

Documents