No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The house is not a nuisance per se or at law as it is not an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings. A nuisance per se is a nuisance in and of itself, without regard to circumstances.
When the donor intends that the donation shall take effect during the lifetime of the donor, though the property shall not be delivered till after the donor’s death, this shall be a donation intervivos.(Art.729) The Civil Code prefers intervivos transmissions. Moreover, mortiscausa donations should follow the formalities of a will. (Art.728) Here there is no showing that such formalities were followed. Thus, it is favorable to Jennifer that the deed is a donation inter vivos.
Furthermore, what is most significant in determining the type of donation is the absence of stipulation that the donor could revoke the donation; on the contrary, the deeds expressly declare them to be “irrevocable,” a quality absolutely incompatible with the idea of conveyances mortiscausa where revocability is the essence of the act, to the extent that a testator cannot lawfully waive or restrict his right of revocation. The provisions of the deed of donation which state that the same will only take effect upon the death of the donor and that there is a prohibition to alienate, encumber, dispose, or sell the same should be harmonized with its express irrevocability. (Austria-Magatv.CA,G.R.No. 106755, February 1,2002)
The donation is void. The donation of an immovable property must be in a public instrument in order for it to be valid. In this case, the donor died even before the notarization of the deed of donation. Hence, it does not satisfy the requirement of being in a public instrument for the donation to be valid.
No. Maria cannot be compelled to reconvey the property. The Deed of Donation was void because it was not considered a public document. However, a void donation can trigger acquisitive prescription. (Solis v. CA, G.R. No. L- 46753-54, August 25, 1989; Doliendo v. Biarnesa, GR No. L-2765, December 27, 1906) The void donation has a quality of titulo colorado enough for acquisitive prescription especially since 12 years had lapsed from the deed of donation.
Illegal and impossible conditions in a simple donation are considered as not written. Such conditions shall, therefore, be disregarded but the donation remains valid. (Article 727, NCC)
On the other hand, illegal and impossible conditions imposed in an onerous donation shall annul the donation. (Art. 1183, NCC) This is so because onerous donations are governed by the law on contracts. (Art. 733, NCC)
Yes the action will prosper. The donation is a donation mortis causa because the reservation is to dispose of all the property donated and, therefore, the donation is revocable at will. Accordingly, the donation requires the execution of a valid will, whether notarial or holographic. (Arts. 755, 728, CivilCode)
Yes, the suit will prosper as the donation did not comply with the formalities of a will. In this instance, the fact that the donor did not intend to transfer ownership or possession of the donated property to the donee until the donor's death, would result in a donation mortis causa and in this kind of disposition, the formalities of a will should be complied with, otherwise, the donation is void. In this Instance, donation mortis causa embodied only in a public instrument without the formalities of a will could not have transferred ownership of disputed property to another.
No, the donation is not effective. The law requires that the separate acceptance of the donee of an immovable must be done in a public document during the lifetime of the donor (Art. 746 & 749, Civil Code). In this case, B executed the deed of acceptance before a notary public after the donor had already died.
1. None. There is no perfected donation. Under Art. 748 of the Civil Code, the donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing. If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing. Assuming that the value of the thing donated, a vintage sports car, exceeds P5,000.00, then the donation and the acceptance must be in writing. In this instance, the acceptance of Jose was not in writing, therefore, the donation is void. Upon the other hand, assuming that the sports car costs less than P5,000.00, the donation may be oral, but still, the simultaneous delivery of the car is needed and there being none, the donation was never perfected.
2. Yes, the answer is the same. If Jose’s mail containing his acceptance of the donation was received by Pedro after the former’s death, then the donation is still void because under Art. 734 of the Civil Code, the donation is perfected the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the done. The death of Jose before Pedro could receive the acceptance indicates that the donation was never perfected. Under Art. 746, acceptance must be made during the lifetime of both the donor and the donee.
It depends. If the notation "in full payment of the loan" was written by Arturo's father, there was an implied condonation of the balance that discharges the obligation. In such case, the notation is an act of the father from which condonation may be inferred. The condonation being implied, it need not comply with the formalities of a donation to be effective. The defense of full payment will, therefore, be valid.
When, however, the notation was written by Arturo himself. It merely proves his intention in making that payment but in no way does it bind his father. (Yam v. CA, G.R No. 104726, February 11, 1999) In such case, the notation was not the act of his father from which condonation may be inferred. There being no condonation at all, the defense of full payment will not be valid.