PROPERTY
HOFILENA
I. CARANDANG v FELIX CAPUNO, ET AL.
 In a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos, Josefa Capuno donated 4 parcels of land,
including a residential house located in Laguna, to petitioners Gliceria
Carandang-Collantes & Luz Carandang, stated therein to be her grandchildren.
 Private respondents are heirs of Josefa, seeking for Annulment of the Donation.
They claim that the thumb mark appearing on the instrument, allegedly of
Josefa, was not hers. And even if it was, she did not intend to convey the said
properties to petitioners under the said deed, her consent thereto secured either
through undue influence of fraud. And that there was no relation between them.
 Petitioners deny the allegations and claim that during practically all their lifetime,
the donees have lived with Josefa who has treated them as her own
grandchildren. They also maintain that considering the services they rendered to
Josefa during her lifetime, the donation was actually based on valuable
consideration and hence the document should be held valid.
 RTC rendered decision in favor of the private respondents, nullifying the
donation, declaring them the only surviving heirs of Josefa and therefore entitled
to ownership of the 4 parcels of land. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: W/N RTC CORRECTLY NULLIFIED THE DONATION INTER VIVOS?
HELD: NO, the SC did not agree with the findings of fact made by the trial and
appellate courts. The decisions of both courts were based on the testimonies of
the private respondents, as well as their opinion that the very witness of the
petitioners, the notary public who notarized the deed of donation, proved instead
the case of private respondents that in truth and in fact, Josefa did not execute
the donation.
The complaint filed by private respondents alleged 2 ground of annulment:
the thumb mark appearing on the instrument, and that consent was secured
either through undue influence or fraud, there being no relation between them.
Since the burden of proof lies on the private respondents, their failure to
present any proof in support of the alleged forgery or fictitiousness of the
thumbmark in question, neither by an expert or by comparison with the true
thumbmark of Josefa, belies their claims. Their testimonies are inherently weak
as against the testimony of the notary public who notarized the document and
declared that the document was acknowledged before him and the thumb mark
was that of the donor. The court thus held that the evidence of the private
respondents in support of the 1st ground for annulment was insufficient. The
degree of proof required in support of annulment should be strong, complete and
convincing evidence.
With respect to the alternative ground of undue influence or fraud, the court
held that there was no allegation whatsoever, much less proof of the facts or
circumstances constituting undue influence nor fraud. On the essential and
material facts, the testimony of the notary public who is also a lawyer is
satisfactory and must be given more credence than the testimonies of the
Capuno witnesses. Considering that the deed of donation is a public instrument
and entitled to the presumption that official duty is done with regularity, the
instrument’s validity is sustained.
Jen Laygo
J.
II. IMPERIAL v CA
 Leoncio Imperial was the registered owner of a parcel of land under the Cadastral
Survey of Albay. He sold the lot for P1 to his acknowledged natural son, herein
petitioner Eloy Imperial, who then acquired title over the land and proceeded to
subdivide the land. The parties admit that despite the contract’s designation as an
Absolute Sale, it was in fact a Donation.
 2years after the donation, Leoncio filed for annulment of the Deed of Absolute
Sale claiming he was deceived into signing the document. A compromise
agreement was executed where Leoncio recognized the validity of the donation
and Eloy agreed to sell 1,000 sqm and to deposit the proceeds in a bank to defray
the burial costs of his father upon the latter’s death.
 Pending execution of the judgment, Leoncio died leaving his 2 heirs, herein Eloy
and an adopted son, Victor Imperial. Victor was then substituted in place of
Leoncio in the case and he moved for execution of judgment.
 15years after, Victor died single and w/o issue, survived only by his natural father,
Ricardo Villalon, who was a lessee of a portion of the disputed land. After 4 years,
Ricardo died, leaving as his only heirs his 2 children, Cesar and Teresa Villalon.
 5years thereafter, Cesar and Teresa filed a case seeking the nullification of the
Deed of Absolute Sale on grounds of fraud, deceit and inofficiousness. They claim
Eloy caused Leoncio to execute the donation by taking undue advantage of the
latter’s physical weakness, and that the conveyance impaired the legitime of
Victor Imperial, their predecessor-in-interest.
 Cesar Villalon then died & was substituted by his heirs. RTC held donation to be
inofficious and impairing legitime of Victor, on the basis that at time of Leoncio’s
death, he left no property other than the land he donated. The CA affirmed.
ISSUE/HELD:
1. W/N THERE WAS RES JUDICATA?
No, it is an indispensable requirement of res judicata that there be identity of
parties, subject matter and cause of action between the 1st and 2nd cases. According
to the records, there is no identity of parties and cause of action as the 1 st case was
instituted by Leoncio as donor questioning the donation, while the substitution by
Victor was in representation of Leoncio and did not need court appointment. A new
cause of action is also raised, that of inofficiousness which could not have been
raised by Leoncio as donor.
2. W/N ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED?
YES, the prescriptive period for an action for reduction of an inofficious donation is
10years reckoned from the date of the death of the donor-decedent since it is only at
that time that the net estate may be ascertained and the legitimes determined. It
took private respondents 24 years since the death of Leoncio to initiate this case.
The action therefore has long prescribed.
The court also noted that the rules of succession require that before any
conclusion as to the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, [1] the
net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, deducting the charges, and [2] the
value of all donations subject to collation would be added to it. Thus, it is the VALUE
of the property at the time of donation and not the property itself which is brought to
collation.
1
PROPERTY
III. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP v CA & Estate of Eusebio de Castro
 Private respondents filed a complaint for nullification of deed of donation against
petitioners. They allege that the spouses Eusebio de Castro and Martina Rieta,
now both deceased, executed a deed of donation in favor of the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Manila covering a parcel of land in Cavite. The deed provides that
the donee shall not dispose or sell the property within a period of 100years from
the execution of the donation, otherwise the property would revert to the estate
of the donors.
 It was also alleged that within the prohibitory period, a deed of absolute sale was
executed on the land in favor of Florencio and Soledad Ignacio for 114k.
 RTC dismissed on grounds of prescription while CA reversed and rendered
decision in favor of private respondents.
ISSUE: W/N THE ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED?
HELD: NO. Although Art764 provides that an action for revocation of donation
prescribes in 4 years from non-compliance of conditions of the donation, the
same does not apply in this case. The deed of donation involved expressly
provides for automatic reversion of the property donated in case of violation of
the condition therein, hence a judicial declaration revoking the same is not
necessary.
The court held that such stipulation for automatic reversion is valid and is in
the nature of an agreement granting a party the right to rescind a contract
unilaterally in case of breach, without need of going to court, and that upon the
happening of the resolutory condition or non-compliance with the conditions in
the contract, the donation is automatically revoked without need of a judicial
declaration to that effect.
When a deed of donation expressly provides for automatic revocation and
reversion of the property donated, the rules on contract and the general rules on
prescription should apply and not Art764 of the Civil Code.
NEVERTHELESS, although the action has not prescribed, the case must be
dismissed because private respondents have no cause of action against
petitioners. The cause of action is based on the alleged breach by petitioners of
the resolutory condition in the deed of donation that the property should not be
sold within 100years. Said condition, in the court’s opinion, constitutes an undue
restriction on the rights arising from ownership of petitioners, and is contrary to
public policy. Although the donor may impose certain conditions in the donation,
they must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public
policy. The condition imposed here constitutes a patently unreasonable and
undue restriction on the right of the donee to dispose of the property donated,
and is therefore declared an illegal or impossible condition under Art727,
considering it as not imposed.
Jen Laygo
J. HOFILENA
IV. LUNA v ABRIGO
 Prudencio Luna donated a portion of land of the Cadastral Survey of Lucena to
Luzonian Colleges, Inc. nor Luzonian University Foundation, Inc. The Donation
embodied in a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos was subject to certain terms and
conditions and provided for automatic reversion to the donor in case of violation or
non-compliance.
 A Revival of Donation Intervivos was executed over the same lot which required
that a chapel, nursery and kindergarten school was to be constructed on the land
and must be finished within 5 years, extensions to be granted only by the donor in
writing, and with the same automatic reversion clause in case of violation. The
foundation accepted the donation and was registered.
 Petitioners claim to be the children and only heirs of the Late Prudencio and filed
a complaint alleging that the terms of the donation were not complied with, praying
for cancellation of the donation and reversion of the land to the heirs.
 The foundation claimed it partially and substantially complied with the condition
and that the donor has granted the foundation an indefinite extension of time to
complete the chapel. It also invoked prescription of action. RTC dismissed.
ISSUE: W/N REVOCATION IS PROPER?
HELD: YES. The donation was an onerous one, made subject to the burden requiring
the donee to construct a chapel, nursery and kindergarten. It is a settled rule that
onerous donations are governed by the law on contracts and not by rules on
donation. The validity of the stipulation in the contract providing for automatic
reversion of the property to the donor upon non-compliance cannot be doubted.
The court held that such stipulation for automatic reversion is valid and is in the
nature of an agreement granting a party the right to rescind a contract unilaterally
in case of breach, without need of going to court, and that upon the happening of
the resolutory condition or non-compliance with the conditions in the contract, the
donation is automatically revoked without need of a judicial declaration to that
effect.
Art764 of the Civil Code was adopted to provide a judicial remedy in case of
non-fulfillment of conditions when revocation of donation has not been agreed
upon by the parties, By way of contrast, when there is a stipulation agreed upon
by the parties providing for revocation upon non-compliance, no judicial action is
necessary.
Although Art764 provides that an action for revocation of donation prescribes
in 4 years from non-compliance of conditions of the donation, the same does not
apply in this case. The deed of donation involved expressly provides for automatic
reversion of the property donated in case of violation of the condition therein,
hence a judicial declaration revoking the same is not necessary.
2