RTC ruled in favor of petitioner and said

respondents are estopped from questioning

PNB v GARCIA
G.R. No. 182839 mortgage since they executed an SPA and
June 2, 2014 stated that the property is part of the
conjugal property. CA agreed.
TOPIC: rights of co-owners to the extent of
ISSUE: WON subject property was
their share
conjugal?
DOCTRINE: Should a co-owner alienate or
RULING:
mortgage the co-owned property itself, the
alienation or mortgage shall remain valid but
The property is presumed to be conjugal in
only to the extent of the portion which may
nature since proof of property’s acquisition
be allotted to him in the division upon the
during subsistence of marriage suffices;
termination of the co-ownership.
which PNB failed to prove otherwise. The
property became that of a co-ownership in
nature after the death of Ligaya.
FACTS:

The extent of the portion a co-owner is able

Jose Sr. acquired a property in Isabela
to alienate or mortgage is only that of his
during his marriage with Ligaya. Ligaya
portion. He has no right to alienate part of
died after. Jose Sr. issued an SPA to let
the thing in common to an exclusion of other
Spouses Garcia borrow the property to
co-owners without adjudication of the court.
secure the loan from PNB and executed a
mortgage in favor of the bank without the
Jose Sr did not have the right to mortgage
consent and knowledge of his children.
the entire property without his children’s
consent. The mortgage is valid in so far as
Respondent’s argument (children of Jose
Jose Sr’s share, but it is void for the share of
Sr):
his children.
a. asked for a nullity of the mortgage
from the RTC stating that it should
be void since they did not consent ALVAREZ VS. IAC
b. Property in question is part of 185 SCRA 8
conjugal property of their parents, May 7, 1990
when Ligaya died they became co
owners TOPIC: Inheritance of obligations not
extinguished by death
Petitioner’s argument
a. Mortgage was made in good faith DOCTRINE: Contractual rights and
and for value obligations are transmissible to the
successors, but liable only to the extent of successors. In the case at bar, Petitioners,
the value of their inheritance. being the heirs of the late Alvarez, cannot
escape the legal consequences of their
FACTS: father’s transaction, which gave rise to the
Ancieto Yanes – survived by Rufino, Felipe present claim for damages. That petitioners
and Teodora. did not inherit the property involved herein
● Rufino’s children: private is of no moment because by legal fiction, the
respondents Estelita, Iluminado and monetary equivalent thereof devolved into
Jesus. the mass of their father’s hereditary estate,
● Felipe’s children: other private and we have ruled that the hereditary assets
respondents Antonio and Rosario. are always liable in their totality for the
● Teodora’s child: Jovita. payment of the debts of the estate.
Ancieto owned 2 parcels of land. It is It must, however, be made clear that
established that Rufino and his children left petitioners are liable only to the extent of the
the province to settle in other places due to value of their inheritance.
World War II. They later found that
Santiago was issued a Transfer Certificate of
Gevero vs. IAC
Title. Santiago then sold the lots to 189 SCRA 201
Fuentebella, Jr. The lots were sold thereafter August 30, 1990
to Alvarez.
Topic: Hereditary share in decedent’s estate
The Yaneses filed a complaint against
Santiago, Fuentebella, Alvarez and the
Doctrine: The hereditary share in a
Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for
decedents' estate is transmitted or vested
the “return” of the ownership and possession
immediately from the moment of the death
of the lots, and prayed for an accounting of
of the "causante" or predecessor in interest,
the produce of the land from 1944 up to the
and there is no legal bar to a successor of his
filing of the complaint, and that the share or
hereditary share immediately after such
money equivalent due the heirs be delivered
death, even if the actual extent of such share
to them, and damages. During the pendency
is not determined until the subsequent
of the case, Alvarez sold the lots to Dr.
liquidation of the estate.
Siason.
Facts:
ISSUE: WON the liability arising from the
The parcel of land under litigation is Lot No.
sale of the lots made by Alvarez to Dr.
2476 which was acquired by purchase from
Siason should be the sole liability of the late
the late Lancero in favor of Del Monte Dev.
Alvarez or of his estate, after his death.
Corp. Lancero, in turn acquired the same
parcel from Ricardo Gevero covering the
RULING:
mother lot in the names of Teodorica – ½
As a rule, a party’s contractual rights and
share and her children all surnamed Gevero.
obligations are transmissible to the
Teodorica died long before World War II is incorrect to state that Ricardo received his
and was survived by her six children. The share in the lot as his inheritance only during
heirs executed an extrajudicial settlement the date of the extrajudicial partition. Thus,
and partition of the estate of their mother. when he sold his share over lot 2476, the
DELCOR Filed an action with CFI to annul share he inherited from Teodorica was also
the partition made by the heirs in so far as included unless expressly excluded in the
the same prejudices the land which it deed of sale.
acquired a portion of (lot 2476).
Calalang-Parulan v Calalang
TC declared DELCOR as the true and
absolute owner of that portion of lot 2476.
But petitioners Gevero appealed contending Topic: When only acquires rights over
that the ½ share of interest of Teodorica on inheritance
lot 1476 was not included in the deed of sale
as it was intended to limit solely to Doctrine: Successional rights are only
Ricardo’s proportionate share out of the acquired after time of death (Art 777)
undivided ½ of the area worth dating to the
names listed in the title and the deed did not Facts:
include the share of Ricardo us inheritance
because it did not recite that she was Respondents (heirs from first spouse)
deceased at the time it was executed. question the sale of land by their father to
the petitioner (heirs from second spouse),
Issue: WON the ½ share of interest of claiming that they are part owners of the
Teodora in one of the litigated lots is land sold.
included in the deed of sale
Petitioner’s argument:
Ruling: a. The land was acquired during the
YES. The hereditary share in the decedent’s second marriage of their father with
estate is transmitted or vested immediately their mother (2nd wife) hence it
from the moment of the death of the formed part of the conjugal property
predecessor in interest as provided in Art. of the spouses
777 of the Civil Code. There is no legal bar
to a successor disposing of his hereditary Respondents’s argument:
share immediately after such death, even if a. The sale of the land is void since
the actual extent of such share is not their father did not obtain their
determined until the subsequent liquidation consent as co-owners. Their father
of the estate. and mother acquired the property
from their grandmother and when
Teodorica died long before World War II, their mother died, they became the
hence, the rights to the succession were owners of her share
transmitted from the moment of her death. It
 b. The sale was simulated since the are complainants in their own right as
petitioner did not have the ability to successors, the deceased’s rights being
pay transmitted to his heirs from the moment of
death.
RTC favored the petitioner but CA reversed
the decision FACTS: Petitioner Emilio Emnace, Vicente
Tabanao and Jacinto Divina- gracia were
Issue: WON Pedro Calalang (father) was partners in a business. They decided to
the exclusive owner of the disputed property dissolve their partnership and executed an
prior to its transfer to Calalang-Parulan? agreement of partition and distribution of the
partnership properties among them,
Ruling: consequent.

No proof suggested the property came from Throughout the existence of the partnership,
the grandmother of the respondent. As the and even after Vicente Tabanao’s untimely
sole owner of the property, Pedro Calalang demise, petitioner failed to submit to
had the right to sell it to the Petitioner. Tabanao’s heirs any statement of assets and
liabilities of the partnership, and to render an
Successional rights are only vested after accounting of the partnership’s finances.
time of death (Art 777 NCC). It is only at Petitioner also reneged on his promise to
the time of death of Pedro Calalang did his turn over to Tabanao’s heirs the deceased’s
heirs have rights over the inheritance. 1/3 share in the total assets of the
partnership, despite formal demand for
Absent evidence that the sale was payment thereof. Consequently, Tabanao’s
fraudulent, respondents have no right to heirs filed against petitioner an action for
question the sale. accounting, payment of shares, division of
assets and damages

Petitioner's Argument:
Emnace v CA Petitioner asserts that the surviving spouse
G.R. No. 126334. November 23, 2001
of Vicente Tabanao has no legal capacity to
TOPIC: Succession are transmitted from sue since she was never appointed as
the moment of the death of the decedent administratrix or executrix of his estate.
(Art. 777)
ISSUE: W/N the surviving spouse needs to
DOCTRINE: The surviving spouse does be appointed as executrix or administratrix
not need to be appointed as executrix or of the estate before they can file an action
administratrix of the estate before she can based on the rights of their deceased spouse.
file an action based on the rights of her
deceased husband—she and her children
RULING: NO. The surviving spouse does seek the court’s intervention to compel
not need to be appointed as executrix or petitioner to fulfill his obligations.
administratrix of the estate before she can
file the action. Under Article 777 of the
Civil Code, which states that the rights to
the succession are transmitted from the
moment of the death of the decedent. Rabadilla v. Court of Appeals
GR No. 113725
In this case, petitioner and her children are June 29, 2000
complainants in their own right as
Doctrine: A will is a personal, solemn,
successors of Vicente Tabanao. From the
revocable and free act by which a person
very moment of Vicente Tabanao’s death,
disposes of his property, to take effect after
his rights insofar as the partnership was
his death. Since the will expresses the
concerned were transmitted to his heirs, for
manner in which a person intends how his
rights to the succession are transmitted from
properties be disposed, the wishes and
the moment of death of the decedent.
desires of the testator must be strictly
Whatever claims and rights Vicente
followed. Thus, a will cannot be the subject
Tabanao had against the partnership and
of a compromise agreement which would
petitioner were transmitted to respondents
thereby defeat the very purpose of making a
by operation of law, more particularly by
will
succession, which is a mode of acquisition
Facts: Aleja Belleza supplemented his will
by virtue of which the property, rights and
with a codicil that placed Dr. Jorge
obligations to the extent of the value of the
Rabadilla as a devisee of 511,835 square
inheritance of a person are transmitted.
meters of his estate. In the occasion that
Moreover, respondents became owners of
Rabadilla dies before the testator, the
their respective hereditary shares from the
former’s wife and heirs shall inherit his
moment Vicente Tabanao died.
portion of the property. The codicil also
placed a condition on Rabadilla’s share, in
A prior settlement of the estate, or even the
that once he or his heirs have received the
appointment of Salvacion Tabanao as
property, they shall be obliged to give the
executrix or administratrix, is not necessary
Maria Marlina Belleza a total of 100 piculs
for any of the heirs to acquire legal capacity
of sugar every year until she dies. This
to sue. As successors who stepped into the
obligation, like the inheritance itself, shall
shoes of their decedent upon his death, they
also be placed upon Rabadilla’s heirs should
can commence any action originally
he perish. The same is also true for any
pertaining to the decedent. From the
buyer, lessee or mortgagee that Rabadilla or
moment of his death, his rights as a partner
his heirs conduct business with regarding the
and to demand fulfillment of petitioner’s
inherited property. The codicil stated that
obligations as outlined in their dissolution
failure to deliver the obligation shall result
agreement were transmitted to respondents.
They, therefore, had the capacity to sue and
in the return of the property to Belleza’s to them from the moment of death of the
nearest heir. decedent.
Maria Marlina Belleza filed a
complaint with the RTC against the heirs of Under Article 776 of the New Civil
Rabadilla, praying for the enforcement of Code, inheritance includes all the property,
rights and obligations of a person, not
the codicil. In her complaint, she alleged extinguished by his death. Conformably,
that the heirs not only failed to comply with whatever rights Rabadilla had by virtue of
their obligation to deliver the necessary subject codicil were transmitted to his forced
piculs of sugar for almost four years at the heirs, at the time of his death. And since
time of filing, they also mortgaged the obligations not extinguished by death also
inherited property to the Philippine National form part of the estate of the decedent;
corollarily, the obligations imposed by the
Bank and the Republic Planter’s Bank,
Codicil on the deceased Rabadilla, were
which was against the instruction in the likewise transmitted to his compulsory heirs
codicil to sell, lease or mortgage only to upon his death.
close relatives. While the complaint was
initially dismissed by the RTC for no cause In the said codicil, testatrix Aleja
of action, the Court of Appeals reversed the Belleza devised the property to the devisee,
subject to the condition that the usufruct of
decision and ordered the reconveyance of
100 piculs of sugar thereof would be
the lot in question in favor of Aleja delivered to the herein private respondent
Belleza’s estate, hence this petition for every year. Upon the death of the devisee,
certiorari with the Supreme Court. his compulsory heirs succeeded to his rights
Issue: WON the CA erred in resolving and title over the said property, and they
complainant’s appeal. also assumed his (decedent's) obligation to
Ruling: The Supreme Court rules that the deliver the fruits of the lot involved to herein
private respondent. Such obligation of the
petition is unmeritorious, as are the
instituted heir reciprocally corresponds to
petitioner’s contentions that the complainant the right of private respondent over the
has no cause of action. It is a general rule usufruct, the fulfillment or performance of
under the law on succession that which is now being demanded by the latter
successional rights are transmitted from the through the institution of the case at bar.
moment of death of the decedent and Therefore, the private respondent has a
compulsory heirs are called to succeed by cause of action against petitioner and the
trial court erred in dismissing the complaint
operation of law. The legitimate children below. The petition is dismissed, and the CA
and descendants, in relation to their decision is affirmed.
legitimate parents, and the widow or
widower, are compulsory heirs. Thus, the
petitioner, his mother and sisters, as
compulsory heirs of the instituted heir,
Tanedo v. CA
Rabadilla, succeeded the latter by operation
of law, without need of further proceedings,
and the successional rights were transmitted
Topic: Sale of future inheritance
 Santos v. Lambao
Doctrine: Sale of future property: said
contract made in 1962 conveying one Topic: Article 1311; privity of interest
hectare of his future inheritance is not valid
and cannot be the source of any right nor Doctrine: the general rule that heirs are
the creator of any obligation between the bound by contracts entered into by their
parties. predecessors-in-interest

Facts: Lazaro Tañedo executed a notarized Facts: Rita, mother of petitioner’s sold to
deed of absolute sale to his brother, Ricardo respondents Lumbao inchoate share of
Tañedo and Ricardo’s wife, Teresita a piece subject property. This was evidenced in a
of land which is said to be his future “Bilihan ng lupa”. After respondents took
inheritance. Upon the death of their Father, actual possession, they erected a house and
Matias, Lazaro affirmed the deed of sale. demanded upon Rita, during her lifetime, to
Ricardo learned that Lazaro sold the same to execute necessary documents to effect the
Lazaro’s children. Ricardo seeks rescission. issuance of a separate title. After the death
of Rita, Petitioner’s reasoned out that they
Issue: Whether the sale of future inheritance cannot execute the issuance of a separate
is valid? title because the land has not yet been
partitioned.
Ruling: No. The sale of future inheritance is
not valid. Issue: Whether the death of Rita may excuse
petitioner’s from complying with Rita’s
The court held: Pursuant to Article 1347 of obligation.
the Civil Code, "(n)o contract may be
entered into upon a future inheritance except Ruling: No.
in cases expressly authorized by law."
Consequently, said contract made in 1962 Finally, the general rule that heirs are
conveying one hectare of his future bound by contracts entered into by their
inheritance is not valid and cannot be the predecessors-in-interest applies in the
source of any right nor the creator of any present case. Article 1311 of the NCC is the
obligation between the parties. Hence, the basis of this rule. It is clear from the said
"affidavit of conformity" dated February 28, provision that whatever rights and
1980, insofar as it sought to validate or obligations the decedent have over the
ratify the 1962 sale, is also useless and, in property were transmitted to the heirs by
the words of the respondent Court, "suffers way of succession, a mode of acquiring the
from the same infirmity." Even private property, rights and obligations of the
respondents in their memorandum concede decedent to the extent of the value of the
this. inheritance of the heirs. Thus, the heirs
cannot escape the legal consequence of a
transaction entered into by their
predecessor-in-interest because they have
inherited the property subject to the liability Facts: Margarita Herrera was awarded
affecting their common ancestor. Being several portions of land which are part of the
heirs, there is privity of interest between Tunasan Estate in San Pedro, Laguna by the
them and their deceased mother. They only NHA (formerly Land Tenure
succeed to what rights their mother had and Administration). Margarita passed away on
what is valid and binding against her is also October 27, 1971 and left two children:
valid and binding as against them. The death Beatriz Herrera-Mercado, the mother of
of a party does not excuse nonperformance private respondent, and Francisca Herrera.
of a contract which involves a property right Beatriz predeceased her mother and left
and the rights and obligations thereunder heirs.
pass to the personal representatives of the
deceased. Similarly, nonperformance is not Francisca executed a Deed of Self-
excused by the death of the party when the Adjudication claiming that she is the only
other party has a property interest in the remaining relative, being the sole surviving
subject matter of the contract. daughter of the deceased and her exclusive
In the end, despite the death of the legal heir. The Deed of Self-Adjudication
petitioners' mother, they are still bound to was based on a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
comply with the provisions of the "Bilihan October 7, 1960, allegedly executed by
ng Lupa," dated 17 August 1979 and 9 Margarita. However, the RTC declared the
January 1981. deed null and void upon the petition of
surviving heirs of Beatriz.
NHA v. Almeida
G.R. No. 162784 During trial, Francisca filed an application
June 22, 2007 with the NHA to purchase the same lots
submitting therewith a copy of the
Topic: Article 774 of the Civil Code Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by her
provides that “Succession is a mode of mother. The NHA granted the application
acquisition by virtue of which the property, and ruled that Margarita executed a
rights, and obligations to the extent of the Sinumpaang Salaysay whereby she waived
value of the inheritance of a person are or transferred all her rights and interest over
transmitted through his death to another or the lots in question in favor of Francisa; and
others either by his will or by operation of she had paid the lots in question in full.
law.”
Upon the death of Francisca, her heirs
Doctrine: Upon the death of a person, all executed an extrajudicial settlement of her
his interests should cease to be his and shall estate which they submitted to the NHA.
be in the possession of her estate until they Said transfer of rights was approved by the
are transferred to her heirs by virtue of NHA. Thereafter, the heirs of Francisca
Article 774 of the Civil Code. Herrera directed Segunda Almeida to leave
the premises that she was occupying.
 same should go to her estate. Margarita had
Segunda filed a Complaint for Nullification an interest in the property and that interest
of Government Lot’s Award. The RTC set should go to her estate upon her demise so
aside the resolution of the NHA and the as to be able to properly distribute them later
decision of the Office of the President to her heirs in accordance with a will or by
awarding the subject lots in favor of operation of law.
Francisca, ruling that the Sinumpaang
Salaysay was not an assignment of rights, People v Umali
but a disposition of property which shall 193 SCRA 493
take effect upon death.
Doctrine: Persons convicted of falsification
Issue: WON the Sinumpaang Salaysay is a
of a document, perjury or false testimony are
will. [YES]
disqualified from being witnesses to a will.
Ruling: When petitioner received the
Facts
Sinumpaang Salaysay, it should have noted
Defendants-appellants, Gloria and Suzeth
that the effectivity of the said document
Umali, were charged with violating the
commences at the time of death of the
Dangerous Drugs Act for selling marijuana
author of the instrument as in her words,
witnessed by Francisco Manalo. A search
“sakaling ako’y bawian na ng Dios ng aking
warrant was issued, and incriminating items
buhay…” Hence, in such period, all the
were confiscated from Gloria Umali's house.
interests of the person should cease to be
hers and shall be in the possession of her
In relation, the appellant denied the findings
estate until they are transferred to her heirs
of the lower court against her and alleged
by virtue of Article 774 of the Civil Code
that witness (Francisco Manalo) is not
which provides that: Succession is a mode
reputed to be trustworthy and reliable and
of acquisition by virtue of which the
that his words should not be taken on its
property, rights, and obligations to the
face value. It was also stressed that the
extent of the value of the inheritance of a
witness had several charges in court and
person are transmitted through his death
because of his desire to dismiss some of the
to another or others either by his will or
cases, he was likely to tell falsehood.
by operation of law.
The RTC ruled against the defendants, and
The NHA gave due course to the application
they appealed the decision.
made by Francisca without considering that
the initial applicant’s death would transfer
Issue Whether or not Manalo’s testimony
all her property, rights, and obligations to
should be given credit
the estate including whatever interest she
has or may have had over the disputed
Ruling: NO, The phrase “conviction of a
properties. To the extent of the interest that
crime unless otherwise provided by law”
the original owner had over the property, the
takes into account Article 821 of the Civil suffering from senile... dementia and was
Code which states that persons convicted of under guardianship; (2) that undue
falsification of a document, perjury or false influence had been exercised by the persons
testimony” are disqualified from being benefited in the document in conjunction
witnesses to a will.” Since the witness with others who acted in their behalf; and
Francisco Manalo is not convicted of any of (3) that the signature of Tomas Rodriguez
the above-mentioned crimes to disqualify to the... document was obtained through
him as a witness and this case does not fraud and deceit.
involve the probate of a will, We rule that
the fact that said witness is facing several Legalization of the will was denied.
criminal charges when he testified did not in
any way disqualify him as a witness. The Torres claims that, among others, the court
testimony of a witness should be given full below erred in holding that at the time of
faith and credit, in the absence of evidence signing his will, Tomas Rodriguez did not
that he was actuated by improper motive. possess the mental capacity necessary to
Hence, in the absence of any evidence that make the same.
witness Francisco Manalo was actuated by
improper motive, his testimony must be As to the mental state of Tomas Rodriguez
accorded full credence. on January 3, 1924, professionals say that he
was diagnosed with senility.
Torres & Lopez v. Lopez
G.R. No. L-24569 “As to his mental state, the result of the
February 26, 1926 different tests to which this patient was
submitted is that his intellectual faculties are
Doctrine sound, except that his memory is weak…
Neither old age, physical infirmities, the testator had full understanding of the
feebleness of mind, weakness of the act he was performing, and full
memory, the appointment of a guardian, nor knowledge of the contents thereof”
eccentricities are sufficient to singly or
jointly show testamentary incapacity. Issue
WON Tomas Rodriguez was of sound mind
Facts and was capacitated when he created his will
Manuel Torres, one of the executors named in favor of herein petitioners
in deceased Tomas Rodriguez, asked that
the latter’s will be allowed. Ruling
Opposition was entered by Margarita YES. The will was short. It could easily be
Lopez, the first cousin of the deceased, on understood by a person in physical distress.
the grounds: (1) That the testator lacked Neither old age, physical infirmities,
mental capacity because at the time of the feebleness of mind, weakness of the
execution of the supposed will he was memory, the appointment of a guardian, nor
eccentricities are sufficient to singly or Inter Vivos” in favor of Maria Aluad,
jointly show testamentary incapacity. covering all the six lots which she inherited
from her husband. Years later however,
An examination of the Philippine cases on Matilde sold Lot No. 676, which is one of
testamentary capacity discloses a consistent the six lots, to respondent Zenaido Aluad by
tendency to protect the wishes of the a Deed of Absolute Sale of Real Property.
deceased whenever it be legally possible.
Subsequently, Matilde executed a last will
Aluad v. Aluad and testament devising Lot Nos. 675, 677,
G.R. No. 176943 682, and 680 to Maria Aluad, while her
October 17, 2008. “remaining properties” including Lot No.
674 was given to respondent Zenaido.
TOPIC:
Matilde died on January 25, 1994, while
The donation being mortis causa (Article Maria died on September 24 of the same
728 of the Civil Code), the formalities of a year.
will should have been observed.
Now, herein petitioners are heirs of the late
Maria Aluad who brought an action for
declaration and recovery of ownership and
DOCTRINE: possession over Lot Nos. 674 and 676
against respondent Zenaido Aluad. To the
The donation being then mortis causa, the complaint, respondent argued that Lot No.
formalities of a will should have been 674 is owned by him as said lot was
observed but they were not, as it was adjudicated to him in the Last Will and
witnessed by only two, not three or more Testament of Matilde Aluad, while Lot No.
witnesses following Article 805 of the Civil 676 was purchased by him Matilde Aluad.
Code. Not having followed the formalities
of a will, it is void and transmitted no right The Regional Trial Court held that Matilde
to petitioners’ mother. could not have transmitted any right over
Lot Nos. 674 and 676 to respondent since
she previously alienated them to Maria via
the Deed of Donation.
FACTS:
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed
Maria Aluad and herein respondent Zenaido
the trial court’s decision, holding that the
Aluad were raised by the childless spouses
Deed of Donation was actually a donation
Matilde and Crispin Aluad. Crispin was the
mortis causa, not inter vivos, and as such it
owner of six lots. When Crispin died, his
had to, but did not, comply with the
wife Matilde adjudicated the lots to herself.
formalities of a will.
Thereafter, Matilde executed a document
entitled “Deed of Donation of Real Property
ISSUE:

Did the Deed of Donation comply with the

formalities of a will?

RULING:

NO. As did the appellate court, the Court

finds the donation to petitioners’ mother
one of mortis causa. The statement in the
Deed of Donation reading "anytime during
the lifetime of the DONOR or anyone of
them who should survive, they could use,
encumber or even dispose of any or even all
the parcels of land herein donated" means
that Matilde retained ownership of the lots
and reserved in her the right to dispose
them. For the right to dispose of a thing
without other limitations than those
established by law is an attribute of
ownership.

The donation being then mortis causa, the

formalities of a will should have been
observed but they were not, as it was
witnessed by only two, not three or more
witnesses following Article 805 of the Civil
Code. Not having followed the formalities
of a will, it is void and transmitted no
right to petitioners’ mother.