100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.
G.R. No. 82027 March 29, 1990ROMARICO G. VITUG, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ROWENA FAUSTINO-CORONA,respondents.SARMIENTO, J.:DOCTRINE: The survivorship agreement is per se not contrary to law its operation or effect may be violative of the law. If it be shown in a given case that such agreement is a mere cloak to hide an inofficious donation, to transfer property in fraud of creditors, or to defeat the legitime ofa forced heir, it may be assailed and annulled upon such grounds.FACTS:While the probate proceedings of the will of petitioner’s wife was being heard, petitionerfiled a motion asking for authority from the probate court to sell certain shares of stock and realproperties belonging to the estate to cover allegedly his advances to the estate for the payment ofestate tax, deficiency estate tax, and "increment thereto", which he claimed were personal funds.Private respondent opposed the motion to sell on the ground that the same funds withdrawn from