Taylor Swift’s ‘Yes’ isn’t enough

Taylor Swift’s ‘Yes’ isn’t enough | Daily Tribune

When Taylor Swift said “yes” to Travis Kelce’s marriage proposal, Swifties fawned over the romance, her engagement ring, and the happy ending (almost there) to her love story. But beyond the glitz and headlines, Taylor’s engagement gives us an interesting springboard to revisit the legalities of giving gifts by reason of marriage.

In Philippine law, these gifts are called “donation propter nuptias” or donations by reason of marriage. Under the Family Code, such donations are made before the wedding, in consideration of it, and in favor of one or both of the future spouses (Article 82, Family Code).

The law views them differently from ordinary gifts because they are tied to the solemn union of marriage.

These donations can involve either movable property — like an engagement ring — or immovable property such as land or a house. For movable property, the donee must accept the donation personally or through an authorized person, otherwise the donation is void (Article 745, Civil Code). If the value of the movable exceeds five thousand pesos, both the donation and the acceptance must be in writing, or else the donation shall likewise be void (Article 748, Civil Code).

In the case of immovable property, the rules are even stricter. The donee must expressly accept the donation in a public instrument, and the document must specify the property donated and the value of any charges the donee must satisfy (Article 749, Civil Code). Failure to comply renders the donation void.

The Supreme Court has clarified this in Spouses Cano et al. vs. Spouses Cano (G.R. 188666, 14 December 2017). It ruled that, as between the parties to a donation of immovable property, what is required is that both the donation and the acceptance be contained in a public document. Registration with the Land Registration Authority is not necessary for validity and effectiveness between the parties, though it is required to bind third persons.

One might think that such gifts are irrevocable acts of generosity, but the law says otherwise.

Donations by reason of marriage are generally irrevocable, but the Family Code (Article 86) outlines specific cases when they may be revoked. These include:

• If the marriage is not celebrated or is judicially declared void ab initio (except donations made in marriage settlements);

•If the marriage takes place without the necessary parental or guardian consent;

•If the marriage is annulled and the donee acted in bad faith;

•Upon legal separation, when the donee is the guilty spouse;

•If the donation is subject to a resolutory condition that becomes operative; and

•If the donee commits an act of ingratitude, as defined under the Civil Code.

The law, in short, balances generosity with prudence. It recognizes love and affection, but also guards against abuse, fraud, or undue advantage.

If we apply these rules to Taylor’s dazzling engagement ring, Travis’ gift clearly qualifies as a donation propter nuptias since it was given in contemplation of their marriage. Taylor’s verbal acceptance — her “yes” — makes the donation valid in principle.

But Philippine law would ask for more. Because the ring almost certainly exceeds five thousand pesos, Taylor’s acceptance should also be in writing. Without such a written acceptance, the donation is technically void, and Travis could legally demand the ring back.

Furthermore, should their marriage not push through — an outcome Swifties would rather not imagine — Travis would have solid legal grounds to revoke his gift. This is where romance and the law part ways.

While a heartfelt “yes” may be enough to seal love, the law insists on documentation, safeguards, and formalities. It is a reminder that even the most personal of commitments can intersect with legal obligations.

In the end, Taylor’s and Travis’ love story highlights a timeless truth: love may move the heart, but law governs the consequences. One speaks the language of emotion; the other, the language of order. For couples, the challenge is to honor both.

Because in marriage, as in life, love makes the promise — but the law makes it binding.