Civ1Rev - de Roma v. CA
Civ1Rev - de Roma v. CA
Civ1Rev - de Roma v. CA
ng
must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have
received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation,
or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.
(1035a)
Art. 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor
The SC affirmed the appellate courts decision and that it merely described
donation
as
irrevocable.
The
NCC. Given the precise language of the deed of donation the decedent donor
would have included an express prohibition to collate if that had been the
donors intention. Absent such indication of that intention, the rule not the
exemption should be applied.
collate because the decedent prohibited such collation and the donation was
not officious.
The two articles provide as follows:
Article 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory
heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he
may have received from the decedent during the lifetime of the latter, by way of
donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.
Article 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the
donor should have so expressly provided, or if the donor should repudiate the
inheritance, unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious.
The issue was resolved in favor of the petitioner by the trial court, * which held
that the decedent, when she made the donation in favor of Buhay, expressly
prohibited collation. Moreover, the donation did not impair the legitimes of the
two adopted daughters as it could be accommodated in, and in fact was
imputed to, the free portion of Candelaria's estate.3
On appeal, the order of the trial court was reversed, the respondent
court** holding that the deed of donation contained no express prohibition to
collate as an exception to Article 1062. Accordingly, it ordered collation and
equally divided the net estate of the decedent, including the fruits of the
donated property, between Buhay and Rosalinda.4
The pertinent portions of the deed of donation are as follows:
IKALAWA. Na alang-alang sa aking pagmamahal, pagtingin at pagsisilbi sa akin
ng aking anak na si BUHAY DE ROMA, kasal kay Arabella Castaneda, may
karampatang gulang, mamamayang Pilipino at naninirahan at may pahatirangsulat din dito sa Lunsod ng San Pablo sa pamamagitan ng kasulatang ito ay
kusang-loob kong ibinibigay, ipinagkakaloob at inililipat sa nabanggit na
BUHAY DE ROMA, sa kanyang mga kahalili at tagapagmana, sa pamamagitan
ng pagbibigay na di na mababawing muli, ang lahat ng mga lagay ng lupa na
sinasabi sa itaas, sa ilalim ng kasunduan na ngayon pa ay siya na ang
nagmamay-aring tunay ng mga lupang ito at kanya nang maaring ipalipat ang
mga hoja declaratoria ng mga lupang ito sa kanyang pangalan, datapwa't
samantalang ako ay nabubuhay, ay ako rin ang makikinabang sa mga
mapuputi at mamomosesion sa mga nasabing lupa;
It is worth stressing that the aforementioned provision has now been reworded
in Article VIII, Section 15, of the 1987 Constitution, which also impresses upon
the courts of justice, indeed with greater urgency, the need for the speedy
disposition of the cases that have been clogging their dockets these many
years. Serious studies and efforts are now being taken by the Court to meet
that need.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED in toto, with costs against
the petitioner. It is so ordered.
Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa, Paras and Gancayco, JJ., concur.