Rodolfo Noceda vs.

Court of Appeals

FACTS:

 In June 1981, private respondent Aurora Directo, petitioner Rodolfo Noceda,

and Maria Arbizo, daughter, grandson and widow respectively, of the late
Celestino Arbizo, who died in 1956, extra-judicially settled a parcel of land
located in Cabangan, Zambales.
 On the same date, Directo donated a portion of her share to Noceda.
However, in August 1981, another extrajudicial settlement partition of the
same land was executed. - 3/5 went to Maria Arbizo, while Directo and
Noceda got only 1/5 each.
 Sometime in 1981, Noceda constructed his house on the land donated to him
by Directo. Directo then fenced her portion of the land alloted to her in the
extrajudicial settlement, excluding the donated portion.
 However, in 1985, Noceda removed the fence earlier constructed by Directo,
occupied the three huts and fenced the entire land of Directo without her
consent.
 Directo demanded Noceda to vacate her land, but the latter refused. Private
respondent then filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership
and rescission/annulment of donation against Noceda.
 Petitioner argues that he did not usurp the property of respondent Directo
since, to date, the metes and bounds of the parcel of land left by their
predecessor in interest, Celestino Arbizo, are still undetermined since no final
determination as to the exact areas properly pertaining to the parties herein;
hence they are still considered as co-owners thereof.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner Noceda’s acts of usurpation constitute an act of

ingratitude sufficient to grant the revocation of the donation?

HELD: YES.
It was established that petitioner Noceda occupied not only the portion donated
to him by private respondent Directo but he also fenced the whole area of Lot C
which belongs to private respondent Directo.
Thus, petitioner’s act of occupying the portion pertaining to private respondent
Directo without the latter’s knowledge and consent is an act of usurpation which
is an offense against the property of the donor and considered as  an act of
ingratitude of a donee against the donor. The law does not require conviction of
the donee; it is enough that the offense be proved in the action for revocation.