In Philippine law, the donation of property—whether land, money, or personal effects—is one of the most common modes of transferring ownership gratuitously, particularly within families. Parents frequently donate real property to children during their lifetime to avoid the complexities of succession. However, because many Filipinos execute these donations through private writings (simple signed documents) rather than notarized public instruments—to save on notarial fees, documentary stamp tax, or out of ignorance of the law—serious legal problems almost invariably arise after the donor's death.

The Supreme Court has been consistent and uncompromising for decades: an unnotarized deed of donation of real property is void ab initio and produces no legal effect whatsoever, even if the document was signed by the donor and donee, even if possession was delivered, and even if the donee has been paying real property taxes for decades. This rule applies with equal force whether the donation is intended as inter vivos or mortis causa.

I. Governing Law and Formal Requirements

The rules on donation are found in Title III, Book III of the Civil Code (Articles 725–773).

A. Donations Inter Vivos (Articles 729, 748, 749)

Movable property
- If the value does not exceed ₱5,000: may be oral (with simultaneous delivery) or written.
- If the value exceeds ₱5,000: the donation and the acceptance must be in writing (Article 748). A private written instrument is sufficient; notarization is not required.
Immovable property
- Article 749 is categorical:
  “In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.
  The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor.
  If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic manner, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the requirement of a public instrument is mandatory and jurisdictional. Non-compliance renders the donation void ab initio (Sumipat v. Banga, G.R. No. 155810, 13 August 2004; Lagazo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131692, 15 July 2004; Heirs of Reyes v. Reyes, G.R. No. 158377, 16 August 2010; Chua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136296, 5 February 2003; Abellera v. Balanag, G.R. No. 151786, 24 March 2006; Nyco Sales Corporation v. BA Finance Corporation, G.R. No. 71694, 14 August 1991, reiterated in dozens of subsequent cases up to 2025).

B. Donations Mortis Causa (Article 728)

Article 728 provides:
“Donations which are to take effect upon the death of the donor partake of the nature of testamentary provisions, and shall be governed by the rules established in the law on succession.”

Consequently, a donation mortis causa must comply with the formalities of either:

a notarial will (Articles 804–808: acknowledged before a notary public and three witnesses), or
a holographic will (Article 810: entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the testator himself).

A private document that is neither a valid notarial will nor a valid holographic will is completely void as a mortis causa donation (Laureta v. Mata, G.R. No. 58657, 29 August 1989; Puig v. Peñaflorida, G.R. No. L-15939, 29 November 1965; Reyes v. Mosqueda, G.R. No. L-45262, 23 July 1990; Balaqui v. Dongso, G.R. No. 31505, 29 August 1975, among many others).

II. Reclassification by the Courts: The Most Common Trap

Filipinos frequently title a document “Deed of Donation Inter Vivos” but insert clauses such as:

“to take effect after my death,”
“the donee shall become owner only upon my demise,”
“I reserve the right to revoke this donation at any time,” or
“I retain usufructuary rights for life.”

When such clauses appear, the Supreme Court invariably reclassifies the donation as mortis causa, regardless of the title of the document (Gestopa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111904, 5 October 2000; Reyes v. Mosqueda, supra; Austria-Magat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146282, 26 August 2003; Heirs of Sevilla v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 150284, 22 February 2006).

Once reclassified as mortis causa, the document is then tested against the formalities of wills. Since it is almost never executed with three witnesses (and rarely entirely handwritten), it is declared void.

This reclassification doctrine has invalidated thousands of family donations executed from the 1950s to the present day.

III. Effect of the Donor's Death on an Unnotarized Deed

Upon the donor's death:

The unnotarized inter vivos donation is void from the beginning. It cannot be ratified by the heirs (because ratification cannot cure nullity ab initio).
The unnotarized mortis causa donation is likewise void and cannot be probated.
The property forms part of the donor's estate and must pass through intestate or testate succession.
The supposed donee has no legal title and may be ejected in an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria by the lawful heirs.

The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the following arguments commonly raised by donees:

“The donor delivered possession and the donee has been paying taxes for 40 years” → Irrelevant; possession under a void title does not validate the donation (Heirs of Sps. Balite v. Lim, G.R. No. 152168, 10 December 2004).
“The donor never revoked it during his lifetime” → Irrelevant; a void act cannot be confirmed by silence.
“Equity demands that the donation be upheld because the donor clearly intended to give the property” → Consistently rejected; the law on formalities is mandatory and admits no equitable exceptions when the nullity is ab initio (Beverly Hills Subdivision v. Tan, G.R. No. 163555, 16 December 2005; Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108998, 24 August 1994, reiterated in countless cases).

IV. The Only Real Remedies Available to a Donee Under an Unnotarized Deed

While the donation itself is irretrievably void, the donee is not entirely without remedy:

Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription (30 years)
- Under Article 1137 of the Civil Code, ownership of immovables may be acquired by extraordinary prescription through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years without need of title or good faith.
- A void deed of donation may serve as a “colorable title” for purposes of computing the prescriptive period (Heirs of Olviga v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104813, 21 October 1993; Cristobal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125729, 22 June 1998).
- Possession must be adverse, public, peaceful, and continuous. Payment of taxes strengthens the claim but is not indispensable.
Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription (10 years)
- Possible only if the donee possesses in the concept of owner, publicly, peacefully, and adversely for 10 years with just title and good faith (Article 1134).
- A void deed does not constitute “just title” because it is equivalent to no title at all (Sps. Antonio v. Sps. Ramos, G.R. No. 176145, 16 October 2009). Thus, ordinary prescription is almost never available.
Ratification by Subsequent Public Instrument Executed by the Donor During Lifetime
- If the donor, before death, executes a new notarized deed ratifying or confirming the previous private donation, the donation becomes valid from the date of the new public instrument (Article 1356, Civil Code; Heirs of Amparo del Rosario v. Santos, G.R. No. L-13372, 28 February 1961).
Acknowledgment or Estoppel by the Heirs
- If all the heirs execute an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate or Deed of Partition acknowledging the donation and adjudicating the property to the donee in a notarized instrument, the donation is effectively ratified and the title is cleansed.
- Unilateral acknowledgment by some heirs is insufficient if others contest.
Reformation of Instrument (Rare)
- Allowed only when there is a mistake in reducing the agreement to writing, and only if the donor is still alive to confirm the intention. After death, reformation is no longer possible.

V. Tax and Registration Consequences

An unnotarized deed cannot be registered with the Register of Deeds. Consequently, the title remains in the donor's name even after death.
Donor’s tax (6% under the TRAIN Law as amended by CREATE) is not validly paid on a void donation. Upon the donor's death, the BIR will treat the property as part of the estate and impose estate tax (also 6%).
The donee who has been paying real property taxes under a void deed may claim equitable reimbursement from the estate but acquires no title thereby.

VI. Conclusion and Practical Recommendation

The Supreme Court has not wavered in over seventy years of jurisprudence: an unnotarized deed of donation of real property—whether inter vivos or mortis causa—is absolutely null and void. No amount of possession, tax payments, improvements, or familial understanding can cure the defect once the donor dies and the lawful heirs assert their rights.

The only safe practice is to execute the deed of donation before a notary public, with the acceptance likewise notarized (preferably in the same instrument), pay the donor’s tax immediately, and register the deed with the Register of Deeds to transfer the title. Anything less invites decades of litigation and almost certain defeat for the intended donee.

As the Supreme Court bluntly stated in Heirs of Reyes v. Reyes (2010):
“The formalities required by law for the validity of a donation of real property are not empty rituals; they are safeguards against fraud and mistake. To dispense with them is to court disaster.”

This remains the controlling doctrine in Philippine law as of December 2025.