Like, X, the donor donates a house and lot to his yaya.

The donor is, let’s say only 50 years old, the

yaya is 70 years old but the yaya took care of him since he was a baby. She got her salary but
because X is so grateful to his yaya, he donates a house and lot on account of the donee’s merits or
the services rendered by him. But X does not owe her anything because he actually paid her her
salary. It’s just to remunerate her for whatever it is he feels she did for him. K. That is remuneratory.
To reward past services with no strings attached. Ok?
So, the 3rd one is still under Art. 726. The second part of the sentence, “... or the gift imposes upon
the donee a burden which is less than the value of the thing given.” Here, it is already onerous, in a
sense because the donor gives something to the donee in exchange for something but what the
donor is asking for is not as much as the thing donated. So very easy, noh?
X donates a car to Y on the condition that Y will teach him how to drive. Parangganun. So this is
modal or conditional. Now, so you can see the donation is partly gratuitous and partly onerous. So,
according to your author, what is the extent of the donation here? If the car is worth P1M and the
driving lesson is worth P10,000, then the donation is worth P990,000. So according to your author,
in so far as the formalities are concerned, masyadonamang complicated, noh? The P10,000 will be
in the form of a contract while the P990,000 will be in the form of a donation.
And the last one is the onerous donation. It’s not defined under our Civil Code provisions. But your
authors include this. How can it be a donation if it’s onerous? The definition given by Paras, if the
burdens, charges or future services are equal to the thing donated, so it’s not really a donation. Why
call it a donation? But we will see in the cases, there are certain donations that the Supreme Court
considers onerous. So we will look at the cases later. So those are the kinds of donations as to
purpose, motive or cause.
Now, the next set of classification... By the way, don ’ t forget Art. 727, illegal or impossible
condition in simple and remuneratory donations shall be considered as not imposed. So in other
words, in simple donation, you can actually make a condition. The donor can impose a condition
but it must not be illegal or impossible. If it is illegal or impossible, it’s considered as not imposed.
Forget what I said earlier that there is no condition. When we talk about simple donations, the
cause is pure liberality but there can be a condition, ok? But don’t forget under your Obligations
and Contracts, if the condition is illegal or impossible, then it renders the contract null and void but
it does not hold true for donations. The donation is valid but it is only the condition that it is illegal
or impossible that is considered not imposed.
So going back to the 2nd classification, from the viewpoint of time of taking effect, we have, of
course, the donations inter vivos and mortis causa. The mortis causa donations are considered, are
those that are given by means of a last will and testament. That’s why it says here they take effect
upon the death of the donor and partake of the nature of testamentary provisions. So they shall be
governed by the rules on succession.
Now, in the many cases that the Supreme Court has decided, if there is an issue as to whether the
donation is inter vivos or mortis causa, the Supreme Court will look for certain features of donation
mortis causa. And these are the general features. They take effect upon the death of the donor. ‘Di
palayan. Ito.
2