7/25/2019 03 - Zapanta v Posadas
1/2
3. ZAPANTA v. POSADAS, December 29, 1928 (RS)
*6 separate actions against the Commissioner of Internal Revenue
and his deputyPlaintis-appellees: Runa Zapanta Rosario Pineda
!limpio "uan#on $eonciaPineda %migdio &avid "eronima Pineda et
al'
&efendant-appellants: (uan Posadas (r' et al'
$a)s:
ection +,6 of the .dministrative Code as amended /y ection +0 of
.ct
1o' 23,o 4%very transmission /y virtue of inheritance devise
/e5uest gift
mortis causa, or advance in anticipation of inheritance devise
or/e5uest of real property located in the Philippine Islands and
realrights in such property * * *4
ection + of .ct 1o' 0+
7.C8: 7ather 9raulio Pineda died in (anuary +2, )ithout any
ascendants or
descendants leaving a )ill in )hich he instituted his sister
Irene Pineda ashis sole heiress'
During his i!e"ime #$"her %r$ui& '&n$"e' s&me &!
his r&er" b
ubic ins"rumen"s "& "he si* $in"i+s, sever$ )ith the
c&n'i"i&nthat some of them )ould pay him a certain amount
of rice and others ofmoney every year and )ith the e*ress
r&visi&n "h$" !$iure "& !u"his c&n'i"i&n
-&u' rev&e "he '&n$"i&ns ipso facto.
o 8hese si; plainti- donees are relatives and some of them
/rothers
of 7ather 9raulio Pineda'o 8he donations contained another
clause that they )ould ta
7/25/2019 03 - Zapanta v Posadas
2/2
righ" "&, "he r&er", $n' "h$" i" is rev&c$be $" "he
-i &! "he'&n&r.
In the donations in 5uestion their eect that is the ac5uisition
of or the
right to the property )as produced )hile the donor )as still
alive foraccording to their e;pressed terms they )ere to have this
eect uponacceptance and this too< place during the donor=s
lifetime' The n$"ure &!
"hese '&n$"i&ns is n&" $+ec"e' b "he !$c" "h$" "he
-ere sub/ec""& $ c&n'i"i&n, since i" -$s im&se' $s
$ res&u"&r c&n'i"i&n andin this sense it
necessarily implies that the right came into e;istence rstas )ell
as its eect /ecause other)ise there )ould /e nothing to resolveupon
the non-fulllment of the condition imposed'
1either does the fact that these donations are revoca/le give
them the
character of donations mortis causa, inasmuch as the
rev&c$"i&n is n&"m$'e "& 'een' &n "he
'&n&r0s e*cusive -i, bu" &n "he !$iure "&!u "he
c&n'i"i&n im&se'.
1either can these donations /e considered as an advance on
inheritanceor legacy according to the terms of section +,6 of the
.dministrativeCode /ecause "he $re nei"her $n inheri"$nce n&r $
eg$c.
o
.nd it cannot /e said that the plaintis received such advance
oninheritance or legacy since "he -ere n&" heirs &r eg$"ees
&!"heir re'ecess&r in in"eres" u&n his 'e$"hEsec' +,F0
of the.dministrative CodeG'
o 1either can it /e said that they o/tained this inheritance or
legacy
/y virtue of a document )hich does not contain the re5uisites of
a)ill Esec' 6+3 of the Code of Civil ProcedureG'
9esides if the donations made /y the plaintis are as the
appellantscontend mortis causa, then they must /e governed /y the
la) on testatesuccession Eart' 620 of the Civil CodeG' In such a
case the documents in)hich these donations appear /eing instruments
)hich do not contain there5uisites of a )ill are not valid to
transmit the property to the doneesEsec' 6+3 Code of Civil
Procedure'G 8hen the defendants are not Austied in
collecting from the donees the inheritance ta; on property )hich
has not/een legally transferred to them and in )hich they ac5uired
no right'
