This is an appeal from a judgment of  the  Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte, the Hon. Dionisio Chanco presiding, declaring that the plaintiff had not made out a cause of action against the defendant and  dismissing the complaint upon the merits, with costs.

This is an action to test the title and right to  possession of the land described in  the complaint.

It appears from the proofs in  this case that the lands in question were many years ago owned by one Agustin Carlos, a relative of the plaintiff.  Agustin Carlos and his wife, Juliana Carlos, had no  children  and, so  far as the record shows, died leaving no heirs except the  plaintiff.  Getting old and needing someone to care for  them, Carlos and his wife took to live with them a young girl of the neighborhood. She grew up with them, giving  them the best of care and doing for them all that  could be  required of a faithful and dutiful child.  In the year 1901 the said daughter  was about to marry the defendant in this case,  Antonio Ramil.  The old people, fearing that the  husband would  remove  the daughter from  the  house and take her to live with him separately, and feeling that this would deprive them of the only  person who would  give them the  care which  they needed in their old age, Agustin Carlos and his wife on the 5th day of April, 1901, after the marriage of said daughter and the defendant, made an agreement with them that if they would remain,  living in their house, caring for them as long as they should live, they, Carlos and his wife, would give to the children the real estate described in the complaint in this action.

This agreement, which  was duly signed and executed by all the parties thereto, assumes somewhat the appearance of a remunerative donation, and it was  upon the theory that it was such that this  action  was tried and decided by the trial court and upon which the appeal is taken to this court.

A careful examination of the record, however,  demonstrates clearly that  the instrument in question is not a remunerative donation within the meaning  of that term used in the Civil Code, but is rather a contract by which Carlos and  his wife transferred  to the defendant and his wife the lands described in the complaint upon the consideration  that the latter should  give to the former the  care therein mentioned and prescribed.   That contract was fully executed upon the part of the  defendant and his wife. They cared for Carlos and his wife as long as they  lived, giving them  food,  clothing and  shelter.   If  the  transaction between  Carlos and the defendant was a donation it was  una donacion con causa onerosa and not una donation remuneratoria.  One of the leading  differences between these  two classes of donations  or gifts is that in the one con causa onerosa the services  which form the consideration for the gift have not yet been performed, while in the other they have.   At the time of the transaction heretofore referred to none of the services which formed the consideration for the agreement in question had yet been performed.  They were all to be performed in the future. Under the provisions of the Civil Code una donacion con causa onerosa is governed by the provisions of  said code relative  to contracts.  That being so, the arguments of appellant relative to the validity of the instrument in question are entirely inapplicable and beside the point for the reason that they relate solely to a remunerative gift.  The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.