RepublicofthePhilippines

SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.82027March29,1990
ROMARICOG.VITUG,petitioner,
vs.
THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSandROWENAFAUSTINOCORONA,
respondents.
RufinoB.JavierLawOfficeforpetitioner.
Quisumbing,Torres&Evangelistaforprivaterespondent.

SARMIENTO,J.:
ThiscaseisachapterinanearliersuitdecidedbythisCourt 1involvingtheprobateofthe
twowillsofthelateDoloresLuchangcoVitug,whodiedinNewYork,U.S.A.,onNovember
10,1980,namingprivaterespondentRowenaFaustinoCoronaexecutrix.Inoursaiddecision,
weupheldtheappointmentofNenitaAlonteascospecialadministratorofMrs.Vitug'sestate
withher(Mrs.Vitug's)widower,petitionerRomaricoG.Vitug,pendingprobate.
OnJanuary13,1985,RomaricoG.Vitugfiledamotionaskingforauthorityfromtheprobate
courttosellcertainsharesofstockandrealpropertiesbelongingtotheestatetocover
allegedlyhisadvancestotheestateinthesumofP667,731.66,plusinterests,whichhe
claimedwerepersonalfunds.AsfoundbytheCourtofAppeals, 2theallegedadvances
consistedofP58,147.40spentforthepaymentofestatetax,P518,834.27asdeficiencyestate
tax,andP90,749.99as"incrementthereto."3AccordingtoMr.Vitug,hewithdrewthesums
ofP518,834.27andP90,749.99fromsavingsaccountNo.35342038oftheBankofAmerica,
Makati,MetroManila.
OnApril12,1985,RowenaCoronaopposedthemotiontosellonthegroundthatthesame
fundswithdrawnfromsavingsaccountNo.35342038wereconjugalpartnershipproperties
andpartoftheestate,andhence,therewasallegedlynogroundforreimbursement.Shealso
soughthisousterforfailuretoincludethesumsinquestionforinventoryandfor
"concealmentoffundsbelongingtotheestate." 4
Vituginsiststhatthesaidfundsarehisexclusivepropertyhavingacquiredthesamethrougha
survivorshipagreementexecutedwithhislatewifeandthebankonJune19,1970.The
agreementprovides:
WeherebyagreewitheachotherandwiththeBANKOFAMERICAN
NATIONALTRUSTANDSAVINGSASSOCIATION(hereinafterreferred
toastheBANK),thatallmoneynoworhereafterdepositedbyusoranyor
eitherofuswiththeBANKinourjointsavingscurrentaccountshallbethe
propertyofallorbothofusandshallbepayabletoandcollectibleor

withdrawablebyeitheroranyofusduringourlifetime,andafterthedeathof
eitheroranyofusshallbelongtoandbethesolepropertyofthesurvivoror
survivors,andshallbepayabletoandcollectibleorwithdrawablebysuch
survivororsurvivors.
WefurtheragreewitheachotherandtheBANKthatthereceiptorcheckof
either,anyorallofusduringourlifetime,orthereceiptorcheckofthe
survivororsurvivors,foranypaymentorwithdrawalmadeforourabove
mentionedaccountshallbevalidandsufficientreleaseanddischargeofthe
BANKforsuchpaymentorwithdrawal.5
Thetrialcourts6upheldthevalidityofthisagreementandgranted"themotiontosellsomeof
theestateofDoloresL.Vitug,theproceedsofwhichshallbeusedtopaythepersonalfunds
ofRomaricoVituginthetotalsumofP667,731.66...."7
Ontheotherhand,theCourtofAppeals,inthepetitionforcertiorarifiledbytheherein
privaterespondent,heldthattheabovequotedsurvivorshipagreementconstitutesa
conveyancemortiscausawhich"didnotcomplywiththeformalitiesofavalidwillas
prescribedbyArticle805oftheCivilCode,"8andsecondly,assumingthatitisamere
donationintervivos,itisaprohibiteddonationundertheprovisionsofArticle133ofthe
CivilCode.9
ThedispositiveportionofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsstates:
WHEREFORE,theorderofrespondentJudgedatedNovember26,1985
(AnnexII,petition)isherebysetasideinsofarasitgrantedprivate
respondent'smotiontosellcertainpropertiesoftheestateofDoloresL.Vitug
forreimbursementofhisallegedadvancestotheestate,butthesameorderis
sustainedinallotherrespects.Inaddition,respondentJudgeisdirectedto
includeprovisionallythedepositsinSavingsAccountNo.35342038with
theBankofAmerica,Makati,intheinventoryofactualpropertiespossessed
bythespousesatthetimeofthedecedent'sdeath.Withcostsagainstprivate
respondent.10
Inhispetition,Vitug,thesurvivingspouse,assailstheappellatecourt'srulingonthestrength
ofourdecisionsinRiverav.People'sBankandTrustCo.11andMacamv.Gatmaitan12in
whichwesustainedthevalidityof"survivorshipagreements"andconsideringthemas
aleatorycontracts.13
Thepetitionismeritorious.
Theconveyanceinquestionisnot,firstofall,oneofmortiscausa,whichshouldbeembodied
inawill.Awillhasbeendefinedas"apersonal,solemn,revocableandfreeactbywhicha
capacitatedpersondisposesofhispropertyandrightsanddeclaresorcomplieswithdutiesto
takeeffectafterhisdeath."14Inotherwords,thebequestordevicemustpertaintothe
testator.15Inthiscase,themoniessubjectofsavingsaccountNo.35342038wereinthe
natureofconjugalfundsInthecasereliedon,Riverav.People'sBankandTrustCo.,16we
rejectedclaimsthatasurvivorshipagreementpurportstodeliveroneparty'sseparate
propertiesinfavoroftheother,butsimply,theirjointholdings:
xxxxxxxxx

...SuchconclusionisevidentlypredicatedontheassumptionthatStephenson
wastheexclusiveownerofthefundsdepositedinthebank,which
assumptionwasinturnbasedonthefacts(1)thattheaccountwasoriginally
openedinthenameofStephensonaloneand(2)thatAnaRivera"servedonly
ashousemaidofthedeceased."Butitnotinfrequentlyhappensthataperson
depositsmoneyinthebankinthenameofanother;andintheinstantcaseit
alsoappearsthatAnaRiveraservedhermasterforaboutnineteenyears
withoutactuallyreceivinghersalaryfromhim.Thefactthatsubsequently
Stephensontransferredtheaccounttothenameofhimselfand/orAnaRivera
andexecutedwiththelatterthesurvivorshipagreementinquestionalthough
therewasnorelationofkinshipbetweenthembutonlythatofmasterand
servant,nullifiestheassumptionthatStephensonwastheexclusiveownerof
thebankaccount.Intheabsence,then,ofclearprooftothecontrary,wemust
givefullfaithandcredittothecertificateofdepositwhichrecitesineffect
thatthefundsinquestionbelongedtoEdgarStephensonandAnaRivera;that
theywerejoint(andseveral)ownersthereof;andthateitherofthemcould
withdrawanypartorthewholeofsaidaccountduringthelifetimeofboth,
andthebalance,ifany,uponthedeathofeither,belongedtothesurvivor. 17
xxxxxxxxx
InMacamv.Gatmaitan,18itwasheld:
xxxxxxxxx
ThisCourtisoftheopinionthatExhibitCisanaleatorycontractwhereby,
accordingtoarticle1790oftheCivilCode,oneofthepartiesorboth
reciprocallybindthemselvestogiveordosomethingasanequivalentforthat
whichtheotherpartyistogiveordoincaseoftheoccurrenceofanevent
whichisuncertainorwillhappenatanindeterminatetime.Asalreadystated,
LeonardawastheownerofthehouseandJuanaoftheBuickautomobileand
mostofthefurniture.ByvirtueofExhibitC,Juanawouldbecometheowner
ofthehouseincaseLeonardadiedfirst,andLeonardawouldbecomethe
owneroftheautomobileandthefurnitureifJuanaweretodiefirst.Inthis
mannerLeonardaandJuanareciprocallyassignedtheirrespectivepropertyto
oneanotherconditioneduponwhomightdiefirst,thetimeofdeath
determiningtheeventuponwhichtheacquisitionofsuchrightbytheoneor
theotherdepended.Thiscontract,asanyothercontract,isbindinguponthe
partiesthereto.InasmuchasLeonardahaddiedbeforeJuana,thelatter
thereuponacquiredtheownershipofthehouse,inthesamemanneras
Leonardawouldhaveacquiredtheownershipoftheautomobileandofthe
furnitureifJuanahaddiedfirst.19
xxxxxxxxx
Thereisnoshowingthatthefundsexclusivelybelongedtooneparty,andhenceitmustbe
presumedtobeconjugal,havingbeenacquiredduringtheexistenceofthemarita.relations. 20
Neitheristhesurvivorshipagreementadonationintervivos,forobviousreasons,becauseit
wastotakeeffectafterthedeathofoneparty.Secondly,itisnotadonationbetweenthe
spousesbecauseitinvolvednoconveyanceofaspouse'sownpropertiestotheother.

Itisalsoouropinionthattheagreementinvolvesnomodificationpetitionoftheconjugal
partnership,asheldbytheCourtofAppeals,21by"merestipulation"22andthatitisno
"cloak"23tocircumventthelawonconjugalpropertyrelations.Certainly,thespousesarenot
prohibitedbylawtoinvestconjugalproperty,say,bywayofajointandseveralbankaccount,
morecommonlydenominatedinbankingparlanceasan"and/or"account.Inthecaseatbar,
whenthespousesVitugopenedsavingsaccountNo.35342038,theymerelyputwhat
rightfullybelongedtotheminamoneymakingventure.Theydidnotdisposeofitinfavorof
theother,whichwouldhavearguablybeensanctionableasaprohibiteddonation.Andsince
thefundswereconjugal,itcannotbesaidthatonespousecouldhavepressuredtheotherin
placinghisorherdepositsinthemoneypool.
Thevalidityofthecontractseemsdebatablebyreasonofits"survivortakeall"feature,butin
reality,thatcontractimposedamereobligationwithaterm,thetermbeingdeath.Such
agreementsarepermittedbytheCivilCode.24
UnderArticle2010oftheCode:
ART.2010.Byanaleatorycontract,oneofthepartiesorbothreciprocally
bindthemselvestogiveortodosomethinginconsiderationofwhattheother
shallgiveordouponthehappeningofaneventwhichisuncertain,orwhich
istooccuratanindeterminatetime.
Undertheaforequotedprovision,thefulfillmentofanaleatorycontractdependsoneitherthe
happeningofaneventwhichis(1)"uncertain,"(2)"whichistooccuratanindeterminate
time."Asurvivorshipagreement,thesaleofasweepstaketicket,atransactionstipulatingon
thevalueofcurrency,andinsurancehavebeenheldtofallunderthefirstcategory,whilea
contractforlifeannuityorpensionunderArticle2021,etsequentia,hasbeencategorized
underthesecond.25Ineithercase,theelementofriskispresent.Inthecaseatbar,therisk
wasthedeathofonepartyandsurvivorshipoftheother.
However,aswehavewarned:
xxxxxxxxx
Butalthoughthesurvivorshipagreementispersenotcontrarytolawits
operationoreffectmaybeviolativeofthelaw.Forinstance,ifitbeshownin
agivencasethatsuchagreementisamerecloaktohideaninofficious
donation,totransferpropertyinfraudofcreditors,ortodefeatthelegitimeof
aforcedheir,itmaybeassailedandannulleduponsuchgrounds.Nosuch
vicehasbeenimputedandestablishedagainsttheagreementinvolvedinthis
case.26
xxxxxxxxx
Thereisnodemonstrationherethatthesurvivorshipagreementhadbeenexecutedforsuch
unlawfulpurposes,or,asheldbytherespondentcourt,inordertofrustrateourlawsonwills,
donations,andconjugalpartnership.
TheconclusionisaccordinglyunavoidablethatMrs.Vitughavingpredeceasedherhusband,
thelatterhasacquireduponherdeathavestedrightovertheamountsundersavingsaccount
No.35342038oftheBankofAmerica.Insofarastherespondentcourtorderedtheir

inclusionintheinventoryofassetsleftbyMrs.Vitug,weholdthatthecourtwasinerror.
Beingtheseparatepropertyofpetitioner,itformsnomorepartoftheestateofthedeceased.
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftherespondentappellatecourt,datedJune29,1987,andits
resolution,datedFebruary9,1988,areSETASIDE.
Nocosts.
SOORDERED.