G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990 ROMARICO G. VITUG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEAL a!

" RO#ENA FAU TINO$ 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 1 involving the probate of the two wills of the late Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in New York, . !."., on
Nove#ber $%, $&'%, na#ing private respondent (owena )austino*Corona e+ecutri+. ,n our said decision, we upheld the appoint#ent of Nenita "lonte as co*special ad#inistrator of -rs. Vitug.s estate with her /-rs. Vitug.s0 widower, petitioner (o#arico 1. Vitug, pending probate. 2n 3anuary $4, $&'5, (o#arico 1. Vitug filed a #otion asking for authority fro# the probate court to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his advances to the estate in the su# of 6778,84$.77, plus interests, which he clai#ed were personal funds. "s found by the Court of "ppeals, 2 the alleged advances consisted of 65',$98.9% spent for the pay#ent of estate ta+, 65$','49.:8 as deficiency estate ta+, and 6&%,89&.&& as ;incre#ent thereto.; % "ccording to -r. Vitug, he withdrew the su#s of 65$','49.:8 and 6&%,89&.&& fro# savings account No. 4549:*%4' of the <ank of "#erica, -akati, -etro -anila. 2n "pril $:, $&'5, (owena Corona opposed the #otion to sell on the ground that the sa#e funds withdrawn fro# savings account No. 4549:*%4' were con=ugal partnership properties and part of the estate, and hence, there was allegedly no ground for rei#burse#ent. !he also sought his ouster for failure to include the su#s in >uestion for inventory and for ;conceal#ent of funds belonging to the estate.; & Vitug insists that the said funds are his e+clusive property having ac>uired the sa#e through a survivorship agree#ent e+ecuted with his late wife and the bank on 3une $&, $&8%. The agree#ent provides? @e hereby agree with each other and with the <"NA 2) "-B(,C"N N"T,2N"L T( !T "ND !"V,N1! "!!2C,"T,2N /hereinafter referred to as the <"NA0, that all #oney now or hereafter deposited by us or any or either of us with the <"NA in our =oint savings current account shall be the property of all or both of us and shall be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by either or any of us during our lifeti#e, and after the death of either or any of us shall belong to and

be the sole property of the survivor or survivors, and shall be payable to and collectible or withdrawable by such survivor or survivors. @e further agree with each other and the <"NA that the receipt or check of either, any or all of us during our lifeti#e, or the receipt or check of the survivor or survivors, for any pay#ent or withdrawal #ade for our above*#entioned account shall be valid and sufficient release and discharge of the <"NA for such pay#ent or withdrawal. ' The trial courts ( upheld the validity of this agree#ent and granted ;the #otion to sell so#e of the estate of Dolores L. Vitug, the proceeds of which shall be used to pay the personal funds of (o#arico Vitug in the total su# of 6778,84$.77 ... .; 7 2n the other hand, the Court of "ppeals, in the petition for certiorari filed by the herein private respondent, held that the above*>uoted survivorship agree#ent constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which ;did not co#ply with the for#alities of a valid will as prescribed by "rticle '%5 of the Civil Code,; 8 and secondly, assu#ing that it is a #ere donation inter vivos, it is a prohibited donation under the provisions of "rticle $44 of the Civil Code. 9 The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of "ppeals states? @CB(B)2(B, the order of respondent 3udge dated Nove#ber :7, $&'5 /"nne+ ,,, petition0 is hereby set aside insofar as it granted private respondent.s #otion to sell certain properties of the estate of Dolores L. Vitug for rei#burse#ent of his alleged advances to the estate, but the sa#e order is sustained in all other respects. ,n addition, respondent 3udge is directed to include provisionally the deposits in !avings "ccount No. 4549:*%4' with the <ank of "#erica, -akati, in the inventory of actual properties possessed by the spouses at the ti#e of the decedent.s death. @ith costs against private respondent. 10 ,n his petition, Vitug, the surviving spouse, assails the appellate court.s ruling on the strength of our decisions in Rivera v. eople!s Ban" and Trust #o . 11 and $acam v. %atmaitan 12 in which we sustained the validity of ;survivorship agree#ents; and considering the# as aleatory

contracts. 1%
The petition is #eritorious. The conveyance in >uestion is not, first of all, one of mortis causa, which should be e#bodied in a will. " will has been defined as ;a personal, sole#n, revocable and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and rights and declares or co#plies with duties to take 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 of con=ugal funds ,n the case relied on, Rivera v. eople!s Ban" and Trust #o., 1( we re=ected clai#s that a survivorship agree#ent purports to deliver one party.s separate properties in favor of the other, but si#ply, their )o*!+ ho,"*!-.? +++ +++ +++

... !uch conclusion is evidently predicated on the assu#ption that !tephenson was the e+clusive owner of the funds*deposited in the bank, which assu#ption was in turn based on the facts /$0 that the account was originally opened in the na#e of !tephenson alone and /:0 that "na (ivera ;served only as house#aid of the deceased.; <ut it not infre>uently happens that a person deposits #oney in the bank in the na#e of anotherD and in the instant case it also appears that "na (ivera served her #aster for about nineteen years without actually receiving her salary fro# hi#. The fact that subse>uently !tephenson transferred the account to the na#e of hi#self andEor "na (ivera and e+ecuted with the latter the survivorship agree#ent in >uestion although there was no relation of kinship between 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 of deposit which recites in effect that the funds in >uestion belonged to Bdgar !tephenson and "na (iveraD that they were =oint /and several0 owners thereofD and that either of the# could withdraw any part or the whole of said account during the lifeti#e of both, and the balance, if any, upon the death of either, belonged to the survivor. 17 +++ +++ +++ ,n $acam v. %atmaitan, 18 it 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 reciprocally bind the#selves to give or do so#ething as an e>uivalent for that which the other party 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 owner of the house and 3uana of the <uick auto#obile and #ost of the furniture. <y virtue of B+hibit C, 3uana would beco#e the owner of the house in case Leonarda died first, and Leonarda would beco#e the owner of the auto#obile and the furniture if 3uana were to die first. ,n this #anner Leonarda and 3uana reciprocally assigned their respective property to one another conditioned upon who #ight die first, the ti#e of death deter#ining the event upon which the ac>uisition of such right by the one or the other depended. This contract, as any other contract, is binding upon the parties thereto. ,nas#uch as Leonarda had died before 3uana, the latter thereupon ac>uired the ownership of the house, in the sa#e #anner as Leonarda would have ac>uired the ownership of the auto#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 be presu#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 it was to take effect after the death of one party. !econdly, it is not a donation between the spouses because it involved no conveyance of a spouse.s own properties to the other.

,t is also our opinion that the agree#ent involves no #odification petition of the con=ugal partnership, as held by the Court of "ppeals, 21 by ;#ere stipulation; 22 and that it is no ;cloak; 2% to circu#vent the law on con=ugal property relations. Certainly, the spouses are not prohibited by law to invest con=ugal property, say, by way of a =oint and several bank account, #ore co##only deno#inated in banking parlance as an ;andEor; account. ,n the case at bar, when the 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 funds were con=ugal, it can not be said that one spouse could have pressured the other in placing his or her deposits in the #oney pool. The validity of the contract see#s debatable by reason of its ;survivor*take*all; feature, but in reality, that contract i#posed a #ere obligation with a ter#, the ter# being death. !uch agree#ents are per#itted by the Civil Code. 2& nder "rticle :%$% of the Code? "(T. :%$%. <y an aleatory contract, one of the parties or both reciprocally bind the#selves to give or to do so#ething in consideration of what the other shall give or do upon the happening of an event which is uncertain, or which is to occur at an indeter#inate ti#e. nder the afore>uoted provision, the fulfill#ent of an aleatory contract depends on either the happening of an event which is /$0 ;uncertain,; /:0 ;which is to occur at an indeter#inate ti#e.; " survivorship agree#ent, the sale of a sweepstake ticket, a transaction stipulating on the value of currency, and insurance have been held to fall under the first category, while a contract for life annuity or pension under "rticle :%:$, et se&uentia, 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 one party and survivorship of the other. Cowever, as we have warned? +++ +++ +++

B/+ a,+ho/-h +h0 ./r1*1or.h*2 a-r0030!+ *. 20r .0 !o+ co!+rar4 +o ,a5 *+. o20ra+*o! or 0660c+ 3a4 70 1*o,a+*10 o6 +h0 ,a5. For *!.+a!c0, *6 *+ 70 .ho5! *! a -*10! ca.0 +ha+ ./ch a-r0030!+ *. a 30r0 c,oa8 +o h*"0 a! *!o66*c*o/. "o!a+*o!, +o +ra!.60r 2ro20r+4 *! 6ra/" o6 cr0"*+or., or +o "060a+ +h0 ,0-*+*30 o6 a 6orc0" h0*r, *+ 3a4 70 a..a*,0" a!" a!!/,,0" /2o! ./ch -ro/!".. No ./ch 1*c0 ha. 700! *32/+0" a!" 0.+a7,*.h0" a-a*!.+ +h0 a-r0030!+ *!1o,10" *! +h*. ca.0 . 2(
+++ +++ +++ There is no de#onstration here that the survivorship agree#ent had been e+ecuted for such unlawful purposes, or, as held by the respondent court, in order to frustrate our laws on wills, donations, and con=ugal partnership.

The conclusion is accordingly unavoidable that -rs. Vitug having predeceased her husband, the latter has ac>uired upon her death a vested right over the a#ounts under savings account No. 4549:*%4' of the <ank of "#erica. ,nsofar as the respondent court ordered their inclusion in the inventory of assets left by -rs. Vitug, we hold that the court was in error. <eing the separate property of petitioner, it for#s no #ore part of the estate of the deceased. @CB(B)2(B, the decision of the respondent appellate court, dated 3une :&, $&'8, and its resolution, dated )ebruary &, $&'', are !BT "!,DB. No costs. !2 2(DB(BD. $elencio'(errera )#*airperson+, aras, adilla and Regalado JJ., concur.

Foo+!o+0. $ Corona v. Court of "ppeals, No. 5&':$, "ugust 4%, $&':, $$7 !C(" 4$7. : Aapunan, !antiago, -., J., ponenteD 6uno (eynato !. and -arigo#en "lfredo, JJ., concurring. 4 (ollo, :$. 9 ,d., ::. 5 ,d. 7 3udge /now 3ustice of the Court of "ppeals0 "saali !. ,snani presiding. 8 (ollo, :4. ' ,d., :7. & Now, "rticle '8 of the )a#ily Code. $% (ollo, :'*:&. $$ 84 6hil. 597 /$&9:0. $: 79 6hil. $'8 /$&480. $4 C,V,L C2DB, "rt. :%$%. $9 ,,, T2LBNT,N2, C,V,L C2DB 2) TCB 6C,L,66,NB! :7 /$&84 ed.0, citing $ 12-BG 54. $5 !ee C,V,L C2DB, supra., arts. 8&4, 8&9, &4%. $7 -upra. $8 -upra., 598.

$' -upra. $& -upra., $&%*$&$. :% C,V,L 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 Civil Code. The syste# of con=ugal partnership prohibits, as already #entioned, donation between the spouses during the #arriage, e+cept that which takes effect after the death of the donor, in which case, the donation shall co#ply with the for#alities of a will /"rts. $44, 8:', '%50. To allow the prohibited donation by giving it a cloak of aleatory contract would sanction a /#odification0 of a #arriage settle#ent during #arriage by a #ere stipulation. "s #andated by "rt. 5:, the nature, conse>uences and incidents of #arriage, which is not a #ere contract but an inviolable social institution are governed by law, and not sub=ect to stipulation.; :: ,d. :4 ,d. :9 C,V,L C2DB, supra., art. $$&4. :5 V 6"("!, C,V,L C2DB 2) TCB 6C,L,66,NB!, 8': /$&'7 ed.0 :7 (ivera, supra, 59'.