Scribd
Upload
285 views14 pages

Inofficious Donation Case: Santos vs. Santos

(1) The donation of a property by a father to his son was deemed inofficious as it exceeded the amount he was allowed to donate under the Civil Code and deprived his daughter, the respondent, of her legitimate share. (2) The court ruled that actions to reduce donations due to impairment of legitimate shares are not subject to a specific prescriptive period but the ordinary 10-year period. Since the respondent filed her case within 10 years of the father's death, the case was not barred by prescription. (3) The trial court's finding that the deed of sale was invalid was affirmed, leaving the valid deed of donation as the basis for the property transfer, which was deemed inofficious

Uploaded by

Kobe Bullmastiff
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
285 views14 pages

Inofficious Donation Case: Santos vs. Santos

(1) The donation of a property by a father to his son was deemed inofficious as it exceeded the amount he was allowed to donate under the Civil Code and deprived his daughter, the respondent, of her legitimate share. (2) The court ruled that actions to reduce donations due to impairment of legitimate shares are not subject to a specific prescriptive period but the ordinary 10-year period. Since the respondent filed her case within 10 years of the father's death, the case was not barred by prescription. (3) The trial court's finding that the deed of sale was invalid was affirmed, leaving the valid deed of donation as the basis for the property transfer, which was deemed inofficious

Uploaded by

Kobe Bullmastiff
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

ROLANDO SANTOS, petitioner, vs.

CONSTANCIA SANTOS ALANA, respondent.


G.R. NO. 154942. AUGUST 16, 2005

DONATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 752 OF THE CIVIL CODE, THE DONATION IS


INOFFICIOUS IF IT EXCEEDS THIS LIMITATION NO PERSON MAY GIVE OR
RECEIVE, BY WAY OF DONATION, MORE THAN WHAT HE MAY GIVE OR
RECEIVE BY WILL.

FACTS:
HALF-BLOOD SIBLINGS AND
BOTH ASSERTING THEIR
CLAIMS OVER A 39-SQUARE
METER LOT LOCATED AT STA.
CRUZ, MANILA

ROLANDO SANTOS
PETITIONER

RESPONDENT

CONSTANCIA SANTOS ALANA

The lot was registered in the


name of their father who died
intestate in 1986.

GREGORIO SANTOS

Transfer Certificate of Title


(TCT) No. 14278 of the ROD Manila

During his lifetime, or on


January 16, 1978, Gregorio
donated the lot to petitioner
Rolando which the latter
accepted on June 30, 1981.
The deed of donation
(Pagsasalin ng Karapatan
at Pagaari) was annotated
on Gregorios title.

On April 8, 1981, Gregorio


sold the lot to ROLANDO as
per a Deed of Absolute Sale.
On June 26, 1981, by virtue of the
annotated deed of donation, TCT
No. 14278 in Gregorios name was
cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT
No. 144706 was issued by the
Registry of Deeds of Manila in
petitioner ROLANDOs name.

On January 11, 1991, respondent


Constancia Santos filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 15, a complaint for partition
and reconveyance against
petitioner. She alleged that during
his lifetime, her father Gregorio
denied having sold the lot to
petitioner that she learned of the
donation in 1978 and that the
donation is inofficious as she was
deprived of her legitime.

Rolando countered that respondent's


suit is barred by prescription
considering that she is aware of his
possession of the lot as owner for
more than ten (10) years; and that the
lot was sold to him by Gregorio.

The trial court found that the Deed of


Absolute Sale was not signed by the
parties nor was it registered in the
Registry of Deeds.
Thus, it is not a valid contract. What is
valid is the deed of donation as it was
duly executed by the parties and
registered.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the donation is
inofficious

(2) Whether or not action of


respondent is barred by prescription

RULING:
(1) Yes. Pursuant to Article 752 of the Civil
Code, a donation is inofficious if it exceeds this
limitation - no person may give or receive, by
way of donation, more than he may give or
receive by will.

Gregorio could not donate more than he may give


by will. At the time of his death, he left no property
other than the entire lot he donated to petitioner
and that the deceased made no reservation for the
legitime of respondent, his daughter and
compulsory heir.
The donation is therefore inofficious as it impairs
respondent's legitime which, under Article 888 of the Civil
Code, consists of one-half (1/2) of the hereditary estate of
the father and the mother. Since the parents of both
parties are already dead, they will inherit the entire lot,
each being entitled to one-half (1/2) thereof.

RULING:
(2) NO. "Donations, the reduction of which
hinges upon the allegation of impairment of
legitime (as in this case), are not controlled
by a particular prescriptive period, as held
in Imperial vs. Court of Appeals but by ordinary
rules of prescription.

Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, actions upon


an obligation created by law must be brought
within ten years from the time the right of action
accrues.
Thus, the ten-year prescriptive period applies to
the obligation to reduce inofficious donations,
required under Article 771 of the Civil Code, to
the extent that they impair the legitime of
compulsory heirs.

The case of Mateo vs. Lagua, which involved the


reduction for inofficiousness of a donation propter nuptias,
recognized that the cause of action to enforce a legitime
accrues upon the death of the donor-decedent, since it is
only then that the net estate may be ascertained and on
which basis, the legitimes may be determined.

Since Gregorio died in 1986, respondent had


until 1996 within which to file the action. She
filed her suit in 1992, well within the prescriptive
period.

ROLANDO SANTOS, petitioner, vs. CONSTANCIA SANTOS ALANA, respondent. G.R. NO. 154942. AUGUST 16, 2005DONATIONS; DONATIONS; U
ROLANDOSANTOS SANTOSCONSTANCIA CONSTANCIASANTOS SANTOSALANA ALANA PETITIONER RESPONDENT HALF-BLOOD SIBLINGS AND BOTH ASSERTI
GREGORIO SANTOS Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 14278 of the ROD Manila The lot was registered in the name of their
During his lifetime, or on January 16, 1978, GregorioGregorio donated the lot to petitioner Rolando Rolando which the latter
On April 8, 1981, GregorioGregorio sold the lot to ROLANDOROLANDO as per a Deed of Absolute Sale. On June 26, 1981, by virtue
On January 11, 1991, respondent Constancia ConstanciaSantos Santos filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15
Rolando countered that respondent's suit is barred by prescription considering that she is aware of his possession of the
The trial court found that the Deed of Absolute Sale was not signed by the parties nor was it registered in the Registry o
ISSUES:: (1) Whether or not the donation is inofficious (2) Whether or not action of respondent is barred by prescription
RULING:: (1) Yes. Pursuant to Article 752 of the Civil Code, a donation is inofficious if it exceeds this limitation - no per

You might also like