Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 234 views

    Vitug vs. Court of Appeals 183 SCRA 755, March 29, 1990

    Uploaded by

    TEtchie Torre
    This case involves the probate of the wills of Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in 1980. Romarico Vitug, her widower, filed a motion to sell estate assets to cover funds he claimed to have advanced from his personal accounts. Rowena Corona opposed, arguing the funds were conjugal partnership property. The trial court upheld the validity of a survivorship agreement Vitug had with his late wife and a bank regarding a savings account. The Court of Appeals held the agreement did not comply with will formalities. The Supreme Court ruled the conveyance was not mortis causa and should not have been included in the estate inventory, as the savings account became Vitug's separate property upon

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vitug vs. Court of Appeals 183 SCRA 755, March 29, 1990

    Uploaded by

    TEtchie Torre
    234 views2 pages
    This case involves the probate of the wills of Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in 1980. Romarico Vitug, her widower, filed a motion to sell estate assets to cover funds he claimed to have advanced from his personal accounts. Rowena Corona opposed, arguing the funds were conjugal partnership property. The trial court upheld the validity of a survivorship agreement Vitug had with his late wife and a bank regarding a savings account. The Court of Appeals held the agreement did not comply with will formalities. The Supreme Court ruled the conveyance was not mortis causa and should not have been included in the estate inventory, as the savings account became Vitug's separate property upon

    Original Description:

    Successions

    Original Title

    2. Vitug vs. Court of Appeals 183 SCRA 755 , March 29, 1990

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves the probate of the wills of Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in 1980. Romarico Vitug, her widower, filed a motion to sell estate assets to cover funds he claimed to have advanced from his personal accounts. Rowena Corona opposed, arguing the funds were conjugal partnership property. The trial court upheld the validity of a survivorship agreement Vitug had with his late wife and a bank regarding a savings account. The Court of Appeals held the agreement did not comply with will formalities. The Supreme Court ruled the conveyance was not mortis causa and should not have been included in the estate inventory, as the savings account became Vitug's separate property upon

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    234 views2 pages

    Vitug vs. Court of Appeals 183 SCRA 755, March 29, 1990

    Uploaded by

    TEtchie Torre
    This case involves the probate of the wills of Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in 1980. Romarico Vitug, her widower, filed a motion to sell estate assets to cover funds he claimed to have advanced from his personal accounts. Rowena Corona opposed, arguing the funds were conjugal partnership property. The trial court upheld the validity of a survivorship agreement Vitug had with his late wife and a bank regarding a savings account. The Court of Appeals held the agreement did not comply with will formalities. The Supreme Court ruled the conveyance was not mortis causa and should not have been included in the estate inventory, as the savings account became Vitug's separate property upon

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Vitug vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 82027. March 29, 1990| Ponente: SARMIENTO

    Nature:
    This case is a chapter in an earlier suit decided by this Court1 involving the probate
    of the two wills of the late Dolores Luchangco Vitug, who died in New York, U.S.A.,
    on November 10, 1980, naming private respondent Rowena Faustino-Corona
    executrix. In our said decision, we upheld the appointment of Nenita Alonte as co-
    special administrator of Mrs. Vitug’s estate with her (Mrs. Vitug’s) widower,
    petitioner Romarico G. Vitug, pending probate.

    Facts:
    Romarico G. Vitug filed a motion asking for authority from the probate court
    to sell certain shares of stock and real properties belonging to the estate to cover
    allegedly his advances to the estate, plus interests, which he claimed were personal
    funds. As found by the CA the alleged advances were spent for the payment of estate
    tax, deficiency estate tax, and “increment thereto.”
    Rowena Corona opposed the motion to sell on the ground that the funds were
    were conjugal partnership properties and part of the estate, and hence, there was
    allegedly no ground for reimbursement. Vitug insists that the said funds are his
    exclusive property having acquired the same through a survivorship agreement
    executed with his late wife and the bank.
    Ruling of the Lower Court
    The trial court upheld the validity of this agreement and granted “the motion
    to sell some of the estate of Dolores L. Vitug, the proceeds of which shall be used to
    pay the personal funds of Romarico Vitug in the total sum of P667,731.66 x x x.
    Ruling of the Court of Appeals
    The Court of Appeals held that the above-quoted survivorship agreement
    constitutes a conveyance mortis causa which “did not comply with the formalities
    of a valid will as prescribed by Article 805 of the Civil Code.”
    Issue:
    Whether or not the converyance in question should be embodied in a will?

    Ruling of the Supreme Court:

    No. The conveyance in question is not, first of all, one of mortis causa, which
    should be embodied in a will. A will has been defined as “a personal, solemn,
    revocable and free act by which a capacitated person disposes of his property and
    rights and declares or complies with duties to take effect after his death.” In other
    words, the bequest or device must pertain to the testator. In this case, the monies
    subject of savings account No. 35342-038 were in the nature of conjugal funds.

    Wills and Successions Vitug vs. Court of Appeals Case Digested by: Cyhna Torre | 1
    There is no demonstration here that the survivorship agreement had been
    executed for such unlawful purposes, or, as held by the respondent court, in order to
    frustrate our laws on wills, donations, and conjugal partnership. The conclusion is
    accordingly unavoidable that Mrs. Vitug having predeceased her husband, the latter
    has acquired upon her death a vested right over the amounts under savings account
    No. 35342-038 of the Bank of America. Insofar as the respondent court ordered their
    inclusion in the inventory of assets left by Mrs. Vitug, we hold that the court was in
    error. Being the separate property of petitioner, it forms no more part of the estate of
    the deceased.

    Wills and Successions Vitug vs. Court of Appeals Case Digested by: Cyhna Torre | 2

    You might also like