Vda De Tupas V RTC

No. L-55800/October 3, 1986

Facts:

August 20, 1978: Husband of petitioner Partenza Lucerna, Epifanio Tupas, died and left the
wife as his only surviving compulsory heir .A will was left dated May 18, 1976- listed 3 lots of
the Sagay Cadastre, as his private capital. However, at the time of his death, the lots subject in
the said will were no longer owned by him, he having donated them the year before (on August
2, 1977) to the Tupas Foundation, Inc., which had thereafter obtained title to said lots.

Claiming that said donation had left her practically destitute of any inheritance, Tupas'
widow brought suit against Tupas Foundation, Inc. in the same Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental (docketed as Civil Case No. 16089) to have the donation declared inofficious insofar
as it prejudiced her legitime, therefore reducible " ... by one-half or such proportion as ... (might
be deemed) justified ... and " ... the resulting deduction ... " restored and conveyed or delivered to
her. The complaint also prayed for attorney's fees and such other relief as might be proper.- TC
dismissed the complaint.

Issue:

WON the donation is inofficious and can be reduced?

Ruling:

Yes. A person’s prerogative to make donation is subject to certain limitations.

Under Article 752 of the CC: He cannot give donation more than he can give by will. If he did
so, what is donated as exceeds what he can give by wills is deemed inofficious and the donation
reducible to the excess (though without prejudice to its taking effect in the donor’s lifetime or the
donee’s appropriating the fruits of the thing donated ( Art 771)

Although the language of Art 1061 seems to limit the collation only to compulsory heirs, the
established rule in Liguez v CA held that it also applies to donations to strangers. Therefore,
Tupas Foundation cannot assert that the donated property no longer formed part of Tupas’ estate
at the time of his death to prevent its being brought to collation. Collation contemplated and
particularly applies to gifts inter vivos. The donation is collationable and made to a stranger.
Since it is made to a stranger, it should be chargeable to the freely disposable portion of the
donor’s estate, to be reduced insofar as inofficious (i.e. exceeds said portion and impairs
legitimate of compulsory heirs)

To find out WN its innoficious, recourse must be had to the rules established by the Civil Code
(art 908-910). Deducting the legitimates form the net value of the hereditary estate leaves the
freely disposable portion by which the donation in question must be measured. ( If value doesn’t
exceed the difference, then it must be allowed to stand; if it does, it’s innoficious as to the excess
and must be reduced). If any excess is shown, it shall be reverted to the petitioner.

The judgment was reversed and petitioner entitled to so much of the donated property in question
as may be found in excess of the freely, disposable portion of the estate.

Provision: Art. 900. If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled
to one-half of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator may freely
dispose of the other half

Art. 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.

- Claim of inofficious- claim that donor gave more than what was within his power to
give
- Such donation is also collationable- value is imputed into the hereditary estate of the
donor at the time of his death for the purpose of determining the legitime of the
forced or compulsory heirs and the freely disposable portion of the estate