Short answer. Not always. A donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing. Under Article 748, an oral gift works only if you deliver the thing at the same time. But if the personal property is worth more than five thousand pesos, both the donation and its acceptance must be in writing, or the gift is void.
What the law says
The donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing. An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the document representing the right donated.
Civil Code, Article 748 — Form Of Donations Of Movables. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing. Otherwise, the donation shall be void.
Civil Code, Article 748 — Form Of Donations Of Movables. Read the full provision →
Small gifts can be oral, with delivery
For everyday gifts of personal property, no formal paperwork is strictly required. Article 748 begins: The donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing. A movable is personal property — things that can be moved, as opposed to land. So you can give such a thing by word of mouth. But an oral gift comes with a condition: An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the document representing the right donated. That means you must actually hand over the item (or the document that stands for the right) at the same time. Without that simultaneous delivery, an oral donation does not hold.
Above five thousand pesos, writing is required
The rule tightens as the value goes up. Article 748 provides that if the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing. Otherwise, the donation shall be void. So once the gift is worth more than that threshold, an oral donation will not do — no matter how clearly you expressed it or delivered it. Both sides of the transaction must be documented: the giving and the acceptance, each in writing. Fail to put them in writing, and the law treats the donation as void, meaning it produces no legal effect at all.
Acceptance matters too
Notice that the article does not only require the donation to be in writing above the threshold — it requires the acceptance to be in writing as well. A donation is not a one-sided act; the recipient must accept for it to take effect. For higher-value movable gifts, that acceptance cannot be merely spoken or implied; it has to be recorded in writing like the donation itself. Overlooking the written acceptance is a common trap, and it can render an otherwise well-intended gift void just as surely as failing to put the donation in writing.
Why the form requirements exist
The formalities are not empty technicalities. Requiring simultaneous delivery for oral gifts, and writing for more valuable ones, guards against fraud and false claims and provides clear proof that a gift was truly made and accepted. It protects the donor from being held to a gift he never completed, and protects genuine donees with solid evidence of their right. Because the consequence of getting the form wrong is that the donation is void, it is worth matching the formality to the value: deliver at once for small oral gifts, and put both donation and acceptance in writing once the value climbs past the threshold.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Doris Marie S. Lopez vs. Aniceto G. Saludo, Jr, G.R. No. 233775, September 15, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Ruth Dizon Devisfruto and Allan Devisfruto vs. Maxima L. Greenfell, G.R. No. 227725, July 1, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Ferdinand Roxas vs. Heirs of Melania Roxas, G.R. No. 254452, November 27, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Fedelina Sestoso Estella represented by Virgilia Estella Poliquit, et al. vs. Jesus, G.R. No. 245469, December 9, 2020 — read the decision on LawPhil →