VITUG Vs CA 183 SCRA 755 G

VITUG vs CA 183 SCRA 755 G.R. No.
G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990 obvious reasons, because it was to take effect after the death of one
party.
FACTS:
There is no showing that the funds exclusively belonged to one party, and
 Spouses Dolores and Romarico Vitug entered into a survivorship hence it must be presumed to be conjugal, having been acquired during
agreement with the Bank of America, Makati, Metro Manila on the existence of the marital relations.
June 19, 1970. The agreement contained the ff stipulations:
(1) All money deposited and to be deposited with the Bank in their When the spouses Vitug opened the savings account, they merely put
joint savings current account shall be both their property and shall what rightfully belonged to them in a money-making venture. They did
be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by either or any of not dispose of it in favor of the other, which would have arguably been
them during their lifetime; and sanctionable as a prohibited donation.
(2) After the death of one of them, the same shall belong to and
The validity of the contract seems debatable by reason of its "survivor-
be the sole property of the surviving spouse and payable to and
take-all" feature, but in reality, that contract imposed a mere
collectible or withdrawable by such survivor.
obligation with a term, the term being death. Such agreements are
 Dolores Vitug died on November 10, 1980, naming Rowena
permitted by the Civil Code. The Agreement is in the nature of an
Corona in her wills as executrix.
aleatory contract.
 On January 13, 1985, Romarico Vitug filed a motion asking for
authority from the probate court to sell certain shares of stock and ART. 2010. By an aleatory contract, one of the parties or both
real properties belonging to the estate to cover his advances to reciprocally bind themselves to give or to do something in consideration
the estate in the sum of P667,731.66, plus interests, which he of what the other shall give or do upon the happening of an event which
claimed were personal funds withdrawn from their savings is uncertain, or which is to occur at an indeterminate time.
account.
 Rowena Corona opposed the motion to sell on the ground that Under the said provision, the fulfillment of an aleatory contract depends
the same funds withdrawn from savings account No. 35342-038 on either the happening of an event which is (1) "uncertain," (2) "which is
were conjugal partnership properties and part of the estate, and to occur at an indeterminate time." A survivorship agreement, the sale
hence, there was allegedly no ground for reimbursement. of a sweepstake ticket, a transaction stipulating on the value of currency,
and insurance have been held to fall under the first category. The
 The trial courts upheld the validity of this agreement.
element of risk is present. In the case at bar, the risk was the death of
 CA reversed and held that the above-quoted survivorship
one party and survivorship of the other.
agreement constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which "did not
comply with the formalities of a valid will as prescribed by Article But although the survivorship agreement is per se not contrary to
805 of the Civil Code," 8 and secondly, assuming that it is a mere law its operation or effect may be violative of the law. For instance, if
donation inter vivos, it is a prohibited donation under the it be shown in a given case that such agreement is a mere cloak to hide
provisions of Article 133 of the Civil Code. an inofficious donation, to transfer property in fraud of creditors, or to
defeat the legitime of a forced heir, it may be assailed and annulled upon
ISSUE:
such grounds. There is no demonstration here that the survivorship
WON the funds of the savings account subject of the survivorship agreement had been executed for such unlawful purposes, or, as
agreement should form part of the estate of the deceased. held by the respondent court, in order to frustrate our laws on wills,
donations, and conjugal partnership.
HELD: NO
The conclusion is accordingly unavoidable that Mrs. Vitug having
The survivorship agreement in question is neither a donation mortis predeceased her husband, the latter has acquired upon her death a
causa, which should be embodied in a will, nor a donation inter vivos, for
vested right over the amounts under savings account No. 35342-038
of the Bank of America.
Being the separate property of petitioner, it forms no more part of

the estate of the deceased.

VITUG Vs CA 183 SCRA 755 G

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VITUG Vs CA 183 SCRA 755 G

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

VITUG Vs CA 183 SCRA 755 G

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VITUG vs CA 183 SCRA 755 G.R. No.

Being the separate property of petitioner, it forms no more part of

You might also like