Art. 760.
Every DONATION INTER VIVOS, made and would render the ownership of the thing
by a person having NO children or descendants,
legitimate or legitimated by subsequent marriage,
or illegitimate, may be revoked or reduced as
provided in the next article, by the happening of any
of these events:
(1) If the donor, after the donation, should have
legitimate or legitimated or illegitimate children,
even though they be posthumous; BIRTH
(2) If the child of the donor, whom the latter
believed to be dead when he made the
donation, should turn out to be living;
APPEARANCE
(3) If the donor subsequently adopt a MINOR child.
(644a) ADOPTION
Value of the Hereditary Estate
The value of the estate (hereditary) is: The value at
the birth, appearance (or reappearance) , or
adoption PLUS the value of the donation (at the
time donation was made).
Value of Estate = Value at B-A-R + Value at
Donation
[NOTE: The value of the donation must be added
otherwise absurdities may arise: moreover, had not
the donation been made, its value would still be
part of the estate; finally, the law does not say that
the whole estate will be that remaining at the time
of birth, appearance or adoption, it merely says that
said value must be taken into account. (See Art.
761).].
Rule When Donation Can Be Covered by the
Free Disposal
In so far as the FREE DISPOSAL is concerned, the
donation will remain valid up to that extent. In
other words, if the entire donation can be covered
by the free disposal; it should remain untouched.
Suppose a donation given under Art. 760 is
coverable by the FREE PORTION as of the time
of birth, appearance, or adoption of the child,
BUT cannot be covered any more by the free
portion at the time of donor’s death, may the
donation still be reduced or revoked?
ANS.: Although some authors are of the opinion
that the answer is in the affirmative because of
Art. 771, still it is believed that the answer should
be negative otherwise the provision on prescription
(of 4 years) in Art. 763 will be rendered nugatory,
donated unstable.
Protection of PRESUMPTIVE Legitime
While Art. 760 seeks to protect the PRESUMPTIVE
or expected LEGITIME, Art. 771 seeks to protect
the ACTUAL LEGITIME.
Art. 762. Upon the revocation or reduction of the
donation by the birth, appearance or adoption of a
child, the property affected shall be returned or its
value if the donee has sold the same.
If the property is mortgaged, the donor may
redeem the mortgage, by paying the amount
guaranteed, with a right to recover the same from
the donee.
When the property cannot be returned, it shall be
estimated at what it was worth at the time of the
donation. (645a)
(1) What the Donee Must Do if the Donation is
Reduced
a. If the property is still with him, return the
property.
b. If the property has been SOLD, give the
value (usually the price of the sale) to the
donor.
c. If the property has been MORTGAGED, the
donor may pay off the debt, but he can
recover reimbursement from donee.
d. If the property cannot be returned (as
when it has been LOST or TOTALLY
DESTROYED), return its value (value not
at time of loss but at perfection of donation).
 Since the DONEE becomes the owner
from the time the donation was
perfected, it is only logical that he bears
the loss (res perit domino) and the risk
of deterioration or depreciation.
Art. 763. The action for revocation or reduction on
the grounds set forth in Article 760 shall prescribe
after four years from the birth of the first child, or
from his legitimation, recognition or adoption, or
from the judicial declaration of filiation, or from the
time information was received regarding the
existence of the child believed dead.
This action cannot be renounced, and is
transmitted, upon the death of the donor, to his
legitimate and illegitimate children and
descendants.
Prescription of Action for Revocation or
Reduction
a. If the donation was made when there was no
child, it is the birth of the first child that
counts, and not the birth of subsequent
children. If therefore, 3 years after the birth of
the first child, a second is born, the period left is
only one more year. We should NOT begin
counting four years all over again.
b. “First child” refers to first legitimate child.
c. Mere birth of a NATURAL child is not a
ground; it is the RECOGNITION (voluntary or
by judicial compulsion) that is the ground for
reduction. Therefore, the period of 4 years
should start from the time of such recognition or
acknowledgment.
Rule in the Case of Legitimated Children
In the case of legitimated children, the period must
be counted from the time of legitimation (that is,
from the time recognition is made by both parents).
[NOTE: It is true that ordinarily, under Art. 180 of
the Family Code, legitimation becomes effective
from the child’s birth, but it is evident that under
Art. 763, what is meant by “LEGITIMATION” is not
the effectivity of the legal status (from birth) but the
act that completes the process of legitimation
(either the recognition or the subsequent valid
marriage).
If a donation was made when there was no child,
but later on, a legitimate child is born, in other
words, when there is a concurrence of causes or
grounds, Manresa is of the opinion that
prescription runs from the earliest cause. (5
Manresa 169).
Effect if Reason Disappears
If the cause or ground disappears, as when for
instance, the legitimate child dies before the action
to reduce is judicially commenced, what happens to
the donation? It is believed that the donation
should remain valid. (See 3 Navarro Amandi 59).
Prescriptive Period
Four years.
Non-Waiver and Transmissibility
The action cannot be renounced, and is transmitted
(if donor dies within 4 years) on his death to his
legitimate and illegitimate children and descendants
(not ascendants or surviving spouse).
Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the
instance of the donor, when the donee FAILS TO
COMPLY with any of the conditions which the
former imposed upon the latter.
In this case, the property donated shall be returned
to the donor, the alienations made by the donee
and the mortgages imposed thereon by him being
void, with the limitations established, with regard to
third persons, by the Mortgage Law and the Land
Registration Laws.
This action shall prescribe after four years from
the noncompliance with the condition, may be
transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be
exercised against the donee's heirs. (647a)
Failure to Comply With Conditions
“Conditions” must be understood to mean the
charges or burdens imposed (like teaching the
donor’s child for one semester, or working at least 8
hours a day in a certain factory). (3 Castan 107). It
can also refer to “RESOLUTORY CONDITIONS.’’
(Example: I am donating my land to you now but
you should not get married for 2 years.)
But, it cannot refer to SUSPENSIVE
CONDITIONS (like, I will donate my land to you if
you pass the coming bar examinations) because
here, if the condition is NOT FULFILLED, the
donation NEVER becomes effective, and
therefore, there will be nothing to revoke.
(Indeed, Art. 764 is a clear case not only of
revocation but also RESOLUTION, because under
Art. 1191, non-compliance of conditions can be
considered a resolutory condition.).
Necessity of Court Action
Although Art. 764 provides that the donation shall
be revoked “at the instance of the donor’’ when the
donee fails to comply with any of the conditions
which the former imposed on the latter, the
Supreme Court held in the case of Ongsiako, et al.
v. Ongsiako, et al. (L-7510, Mar. 30, 1957) (as well
as in previous cases), that the donor may NOT
REVOKE a donation by his own UNILATERAL
ACT, even if the donee should have broken any of
the conditions imposed by the donation. A court
action is essential, if the donee refuses to
return the property voluntarily.
Ongsiako, et al. v. Ongsiako, et al. L-7510, Mar. 30,
1957
FACTS: The mother of the parties executed a deed
of donation inter vivos in their favor in 1929, subject
to the condition that each of the donees shall pay
her a yearly pension of P1,000 as long as she lived.
However, the defendant failed to pay the annual
pension in 1930, and in 1941, the donor executed
another deed revoking the donation in favor of the
defendant, and adjudicated the property previously
donated to the defendant, to the plaintiff. This was
duly accepted by the plaintiff, but was not
registered. Neither was the defendant notified of
the revocation. The donor dies in 1950, without
having fi led any action for the revocation, total or
partial, of the donation. In 1951, the plaintiff fi led
an action seeking to get the land previously
donated to the defendant alleging the revocation by
the donor of the same, for breach by defendant of
its condition.
HELD: The deed of revocation made unilaterally by
the donor did not render the donation ineffective, it
having been done without the intervention of the
defendant-donee or of the court. Since the action
for revocation was fi led only in 1951, while the fi rst
breach of the condition to pay the yearly pension to
the donor was incurred in 1930, the same is barred
by prescription. Therefore, the defendant-donee
continues to be the owner.
Compliance With All Conditions
The law says “with any of the conditions.” This
implies that ALL the conditions or charges
imposed must be complied with unless they be
immoral, illegal or physically impossible, in which
case, they must be disregarded. (Art. 727).
Garrido v. CA 56 SCAD 318 (1994)
When the donee fails to comply with any of the
conditions imposed by the donor, it is the donor
who has the right to impugn the validity of the
transaction affecting the donated property.
Central Philippine University v. CA 63 SCAD 72
(1995)
A modal donation is one in which the donor
imposes a prestation upon the donee.
Period for Fulfillment of Conditions
Within what period must the conditions be
performed?
ANS.:
a. If there is a period given, said period is
controlling, unless extended by the donor.
b. If there is no period, the Courts must fix a
reasonable term. (See Barretto v. City of
Manila, 7 Phil. 416).
Barretto v. City of Manila
7 Phil. 416
FACTS: Barretto donated his land fronting the
Malacañang Palace with the condition that no
structures would be erected upon the land and on
the further condition that its only purpose would be
to beautify the vicinity in the formation of a great
public plaza. Later, the donee (the City of Manila)
used it as a public street. Barretto then sued to
recover the land for failure to comply with his
conditions.
HELD: When the donee accepted the donation, it is
understood that it also agreed to comply with all the
conditions stated in the deed.
Effect on Property Donated
a. If still with the donee, he must return the same
to the donor.
b. If sold, donated, or mortgaged, the alienation or
encumbrance will be considered void, unless
the grantee be an innocent third party (did not
know of the non-fulfillment) who has recorded
or registered his own right. (See the Spanish
Mortgage, Art. 38, and the Land Registration
Law, Act 496).
Prescriptive Period
4 years from the non-compliance of the condition.
(Art. 764, last par.; Nagrampa, et al. v. Nagrampa,
L-15434, Oct. 31, 1960).
Transmissibility of the Right to Revoke
The heirs (whether compulsory or voluntary) are
expressly granted the right to revoke if the donor
is already dead, that the prescriptive period has
not yet lapsed. If there be two or more heirs, what
should be done if they cannot agree whether to
revoke or not?
ANS.:
(a) If the property donated is DIVISIBLE, each heir
can of course ask for the revocation of his own
aliquot share.
(b) If the object is essentially INDIVISIBLE, each
may ask for the cash value of his share.
What the Phrase ‘Donee’s Heirs’ Includes
The phrase “donee’s heirs” also includes the
donee’s assigns.
(Acunin v. Asis, [CA] 46 O.G. 4980).
When Court Action is Not Essential
Note that the non-fulfillment of the condition does
not automatically revoke the donation. Court action
is essential for revocation, unless the donee
willingly surrenders the property or its value. It is
the party prejudiced who should bring the suit.
(Oracion v. Juanillo, 46 O.G. 5421). (See also
Ongsiako, et al. v. Ongsiako, et al., L-7510, Mar.
30, 1957).
Revocation at the Instance of the Donor’s Heirs
May revocation be done at the instance of the
donor’s heirs?
ANS.: It is submitted (and the law expressly says)
that the answer is “yes’’ because one right of a
creditor is to exercise the rights that could have
been exercised by the debtor (unless the right is
purely a personal one, and it is evident that his right
granted in Art. 764 is not a purely personal right,
unlike that where the ground is ingratitude). (Acunin
v. Asis, 46 O.G. 4980).
Action to Revoke May Be Waived
The action to revoke is waivable by the donor or
his successors-in-interest. (This is because of the
absence of a prohibition.)
What the Word ‘Condition’ Does Not Refer To
Central Philippine University v. CA 63 SCAD 72
(1995)
The word “condition’’ in Art. 764 of the Civil Code
does not refer to uncertain events on which the
birth or extinguishment of a juridical relation
depends, but is used in the vulgar sense of
obligations or charges imposed by the donor on the
donee.
Art. 765. The donation may also be revoked at the
instance of the donor, by reason of INGRATITUDE
in the following cases:
(1) If the donee should commit some offense
against the person, the honor or the property of the
donor, or of his wife or children under his parental
authority;
(2) If the donee imputes to the donor any criminal
offense, or any act involving moral turpitude, even
though he should prove it, unless the crime or the
act has been committed against the donee himself,
his wife or children under his authority;
(3) If he unduly refuses him support when the
donee is legally or morally bound to give support to
the donor. (648a)
Reason for the Law on Grounds of Ingratitude
One who has been the object of generosity must
not turn ungrateful. Gratitude here is a moral as
well as a legal duty.
Acts of Ingratitude Covered
The acts of ingratitude in Art. 766 are:
(a) Purely PERSONAL (hence the act must have
been committed by the DONEE, and not by his
wife or relatives).
(Guzman v. Ibea, decided June 26, 1941, held that
if the donee’s wife attacks the donor, the donation
is not revocable on the ground of ingratitude.)
(MOREOVER, as a general rule, it is only the donor
who can, in the proper case, bring an action to
revoke on ground of ingratitude.)
(b) EXCLUSIVE (hence, those not enumerated are
deemed excluded)
Paragraph 1:
“If the donee should commit some offense against
the PERSON (not merely the life), the HONOR, or
the PROPERTY of the donor, or of his wife, or
children under his parental authority’’:
(a) “Offense’’ includes both crimes and non-
crimes; no criminal conviction is required, and
proof of the offense, by mere preponderance of
evidence, in the suit for revocation would be
sufficient.
(b) “Under parental authority’’ refers to those
children not yet emancipated by reaching the age
of majority, or marriage, or by parental concession,
or by the appointment of a general guardian. (Art.
327). Hence, if the donee commits a crime against
a 25-year-old child of the donor, the cause for
revocation of the donation on the ground of
ingratitude does not exist.
Paragraph 2:
“If the donee imputes to (accuses or becomes a
witness against) the donor any CRIMINAL
offense, or any ACT involving MORAL
TURPITUDE, even though he should prove it,
unless the crime or the act has been committed
against the donee himself, his wife, or children
under his authority.”
Example of the General Rule:
The donee accused the donor of murdering X, a
stranger. The donee can prove his charge. May the
donor ask for the revocation of the donation on the
ground of ingratitude?
ANS.: Yes.
(b) Example of the Exception: If in the above
example, X is the minor child of the donee, will the
revocation prosper?
ANS.: No, because the crime was committed
against a child under the donee’s authority.
(c) “Authority” should be understood to refer to
parental authority.
Paragraph 3:
“If he unduly refuses him support when the
donee is legally or morally bound to give support to
the donor.’’
a. Note that the law says “LEGALLY OR
MORALLY BOUND.”
b. The refusal to support must be “undue” or
unjustified (Hence, if there is a just reason for
refusal, there can be no revocation.)
c. It is understood that the support given
periodically should not exceed the value of the
thing donated. The moment this amount is
reached, the duty to support also ends.
Moreover, there will really be no more donation
that can be revoked.
d. Even if the donor still has relatives who can
adequately support him, it would seem from the
wording and the intent of the article that once
the donor calls upon him for support, the donee
must give the support he is able to. Otherwise,
there would indeed be ingratitude.
Revocation of Donation ‘Propter Nuptias’
One ground for revoking a donation propter nuptias
is ingratitude as defined by Art. 765. And a more
specific ground to revoke such a donation given
between the would-be spouses, is the commission
later on of a ground that would cause legal
separation. (See Art. 107)
Art. 766. Although the donation is revoked on
account of ingratitude, nevertheless, the alienations
and mortgages effected BEFORE the notation of
the complaint for revocation in the Registry of
Property shall subsist.
Later ones shall be void. (649)
Effect on Alienations and Mortgages If the
Donation is Revoked Because of Ingratitude
(a) A donated to B a parcel of land on Sep. 8, 2003.
On Dec. 27, 2003, B sold the land to X. On Jan. 2,
2004, B tried to kill A, but failed. On Jan. 18, 2004,
A sued for the revocation of the donation. The suit
was recorded. Will the action prosper?
ANS.: Yes, the action will prosper because this is a
clear case of ingratitude, but since the sale was
made long before the annotation of the complaint
for revocation in the Registry of Property, the sale
in favor of X is valid. Therefore, all that A can
recover from B would be the value of the property.
(The value should be computed as of the date the
donation was made). (See Art. 766). (See also Art.
767).
(b) If in the problem given, the sale was made after
the annotation of the complaint for revocation, how
would this effect your answer?
ANS.: The suit for revocation will also prosper, and
this time, the donor can get the property from the
buyer X, because under the facts given, it is clear
that the sale is null and void, and X cannot be
termed a purchaser in good faith. (Art. 766, 2nd
par.).
(c) Suppose the sale is made after the suit for
revocation was brought, but before the complaint
was annotated in the Registry of Property, would
the sale be valid or void?
ANS.: Although the law says apparently that the sale
is valid since it was made before annotation, a distinction
must be made. If notwithstanding its non-annotation, the
buyer knew (thru other means) of the existence of the
pending action, he should be considered a purchaser in
bad faith, and therefore the sale should not be considered
valid. It has been held that “actual knowledge” is equivalent
to registration or annotation.
Art. 767. In the case referred to in the first
paragraph of the preceding article, the donor shall
have a right to demand from the donee the value
of property alienated which he cannot recover from
third persons, or the sum for which the same has
been mortgaged.
The value of said property shall be fixed as of the
time of the donation. (650)
Rule When Third Persons Have the Property, or
When It Has Been Mortgaged
The article applies when:
a. recovery cannot be had from third persons
because they are innocent;
b. or when the property has been mortgaged.
Meaning of ‘Time’
“Time of the donation’’ refers to the “perfection’’ of
the donation.
Rule When Donee is Insolvent
Suppose the third party is innocent, and the donee
is insolvent, what are the rights of the donor?
ANS.: He will have the same rights as those
possessed by a creditor over an insolvent debtor.
He can, for example, exercise all actions of the
donee-debtor with reference to the recovery (if any)
of other kinds of property (except those rights
inherent in the person of the debtor); or he can wait
until the debtor gets money or property in the
future. (See Art. 1177).
Effect of Loss or Deterioration
If the property has been lost or has deteriorated
thru any cause including a fortuitous event, the
donee should respond with damages, because as
owner, he is supposed to bear the loss or
deterioration (res perit domino)
Art. 768. When the donation is revoked for any of
the causes stated in Article 760, or by reason of
ingratitude, or when it is reduced because it is
inofficious, the donee shall not return the fruits
except from the filing of the complaint.
If the revocation is based upon noncompliance with
any of the conditions imposed in the donation, the
donee shall return not only the property but also the
fruits thereof which he may have received after
having failed to fulfill the condition. (651)
The Returning of Fruits
What fruits must be returned when the donation is
revoked?
ANS.: It depends:
(a) The fruits accruing from the time the action is
filed must be returned if the ground is
1. B-A-R (Art. 760); OR
2. Inofficiousness of the donation because the
legitime has been impaired (Art. 771); OR
3. Ingratitude. (Art. 765).
(b) The fruits received after failure to fulfill the
condition (or conditions) must be returned if the
ground is NON-COMPLIANCE with any of the
conditions imposed. (Art. 764).
Rule in Case of Money
If the property donated was MONEY, fruits thereof
shall be the legal rate of interest (unless the
contrary has been agreed upon). (Art. 2209).
Poverty in this regard shall NOT be an excuse.
Art. 769. The action granted to the donor by reason
of ingratitude cannot be renounced in advance.
This action prescribes within one year, to be
counted from the time the donor had knowledge of
the fact and it was possible for him to bring the
action. (652)
No Renunciation in Advance of the Action to
Revoke Because of Ingratitude
The right to revoke because of ingratitude
cannot be renounced in advance (that is, prior to or
at the time of the perfection of the donation).
However, if the act of ingratitude has already been
committed, the right to revoke may be
RENOUNCED for this would be merely an act of
forgiveness.
Form of Renunciation when Proper
When it can be done in a proper case, renunciation
may be done expressly or impliedly since the law
requires no formality under this article. However,
when express renunciation is made, it is believed
that this must comply with formalities of
donations. Hence, if the property donated was
land, the renunciation of PAST ingratitude, should,
it is believed, be in the form of public instrument.
(See Art. 1270). However, one who renounces
must:
(a) be aware of the act causing the ingratitude;
(b) have capacity to dispose of his property at the
time the waiver is made.
(3) Prescriptive Period
The action to revoke because of ingratitude
prescribes within one year. The period must be
counted from the time
a. the donor knew of the fact or cause of
ingratitude;
b. provided that it was possible for him to bring
the action.
(Therefore, if immediately after knowledge of the
fact, he becomes unconscious for six months, the
period of six months should NOT be counted.)
Art. 770. This action shall NOT be transmitted to
the heirs of the donor, if the latter did not
institute the same, although he could have done
so, and even if he should die before the
expiration of one year.
Neither can this action be brought against the heir
of the donee, unless upon the latter's death the
complaint has been filed. (653)
Generally, No Transmissibility of Right
The action as a rule cannot be transmitted
because the right is PURELY PERSONAL to the
donor. If however, he has already instituted the
action, but dies before its termination, his heirs
are allowed to continue the suit.
If, upon the other hand, the donor is killed by the
donee, it follows that the donor never had a chance
to revoke, in this case the heir may institute the
action within the proper prescriptive period, of
course. (5 Manresa 183). In the same manner, the
heirs may begin the action if the donor died without
having known of the act of ingratitude. (5 Manresa
184).
Problems
(a) A donated to B a house. But B later accused A
of a crime. A could have revoked the donation, but
although six months had already elapsed since the
accusation, A had still not brought the action to
revoke. A then died. Can C, the heir of A,
successfully bring the action two months after A’s
death?
ANS.: No more. The donor here could have brought
the action had he wanted to but he did not. A alone
is supposed to judge the acts of the donee, and as
in the case above, it is clear that he has because of
generosity, renounced the action. This is so even if
the donor died before the expiration of one year
from knowledge. This is indeed a case of
PRESUMED PARDON. (5 Manresa 183).
(b) A donated property to B, who later committed a
crime against A. A then instituted criminal
proceedings against B. In the criminal proceedings,
the civil action to revoke the donation was not
included (of course). B was convicted, but before A
could bring the action for revocation, he (A) died.
May A’s heirs still bring the action? Why?
ANS.: Yes, because from the facts given, it is
evident that A had no intention at all to pardon B.
(See 3 Navarro Amandi 74).
Heirs of Donee Are Not Original Defendants
Under this article, the donee’s heirs cannot be
made original defendants, though they may later on
be substituted.
Art. 771. Donations which in accordance with
the provisions of Article 752, are INOFFICIOUS,
bearing in mind the Estimated Net Value of the
donor's property at the time of his death, shall
be reduced with regard to the excess; but this
reduction shall not prevent the donations from
taking effect during the life of the donor, nor
shall it bar the donee from appropriating the
fruits.
For the reduction of donations the provisions of this
Chapter and of Articles 911 and 912 of this Code
shall govern. (654)
Rules Re Inofficious Donations
a. Note that the value of the estate is that which
it had, not at the time of donation, but at the
 time of the donor’s death. (The property left
minus debts and charges plus the value of the
donation equals the net hereditary estate.
Property left – Debts & Charges + donation
= Net Hereditary Estate
b. Inofficious donations may not only be
reduced; they may be completely cancelled
(when, for example, the donor had no free
portion left, because of the presence of certain
compulsory heirs). Example: If the compulsory
heirs are the surviving spouse (she gets 1/4 of
the estate), one legitimate child (1/2), and one
illegitimate child (1/4), it is evident that
everything constitutes the legitime, leaving
nothing at the free disposal of the donor. Here,
all donations inter vivos should be totally
reduced, unless of course the compulsory heirs
concerned refuse to institute the action.
c. Since the inofficiousness of the donation
cannot be determined till after the donor’s
death, it follows that in the meantime, the
donation is valid and ownership is
transmitted to the donee during the donor’s
lifetime.
Some Implications From the Transfer of Ownership
Because of this transfer of ownership, it follows
that:
a. The donee gets the fruits while the donor is
still alive (by the principle of accession
discreta).
b. The donee can take advantage of natural or
artificial incorporations or attachments (by
the principle of accession continua).
c. The donee bears the loss in case of
destruction or deterioration.
Preference of Donations
Donations (inter vivos) are preferred over devises
and legacies (dispositions mortis causa). (Par. 1,
Art. 911).
Rule in Case of Real Estate
If real estate has been donated, and it is
inconvenient to divide it (in case a reduction is to be
made), then it will go to the DONEE if the
reduction is less than 60%, otherwise it goes to the
compulsory heirs; but in either case there must be
a reimbursing of each other. (Art. 912).
Art. 772. Only those who at the time of the
donor's death have a right to the legitime and
their heirs and successors in interest may ask
for the reduction or inofficious donations.
Those referred to in the preceding paragraph
cannot renounce their right during the lifetime of the
donor, either by express declaration, or by
consenting to the donation.
The donees, devisees and legatees, who are not
entitled to the legitime and the creditors of the
deceased can neither ask for the reduction nor
avail themselves thereof. (655a)
Persons Who Can Ask for the Reduction of
Inofficious Donation
This Article refers to the people who can ask for the
reduction of an inofficious donation. Note that the
donor himself has no right to ask for the reduction.
This is because it is only at his death when the
officiousness or the inofficiousness of the
donation can be determined.
Note that only the following may ask for the
reduction on the ground of inofficiousness:
(a) the compulsory heirs of the donor (whether
children, other descendants, ascendants or
surviving spouse)
(b) the heirs and successors-in-interest of the
abovementioned compulsory heirs.
The following cannot ask for the reduction:
a. voluntary heirs of the donor (such as friends,
brothers, etc.)
b. devisees (recipients of gifts of real property in a
will)
c. legatees (recipients of gifts of personal
property in a will)
d. creditors of the deceased (The Register of
Deeds is not allowed to raise the question as to
whether or not a donation is inofficious. (TS
Apr. 17, 1907).
Non-Waiver
If a son of a donor consents to the donation to the
stranger or expressly tells his father that he waives
the right to ever bring suit to reduce the inofficious
donation, he may still do so after the father’s death.
(Art. 772, second paragraph).
Prescriptive Period
The action to reduce (or revoke, in the proper case)
must be brought within 5 years from the time of the
donor’s death. (See Art. 1149).
Collation
If the donee happens to be a compulsory heir, he
must collate (bring back the value) the property
donated, for its value is considered already an
advance of his legitime or inheritance. (Art. 1061).
The donee’s share of the estate (if also compulsory
heir) shall be reduced by an amount equal to that
already received by him; and his co-heirs shall
receive an equivalent, as much as possible, in
property of the same nature, class, and quality.
(Art. 1073).
Adoption of a Person of Major Age
Whereas adoption of a person of major age is not a
ground under Art. 760, it may serve as a ground
under Arts. 771 and 772 in case the donation
impairs his legitime.
Catibog, et al. v. Razon, et al.
(CA) 50 O.G. 5433
If the creditors of the deceased believe that
certain donations made by the deceased while still
alive are inofficious, their remedy is not to go
against the donees (for under Art. 772, they have
no such right) but to go against the estate of the
deceased.
Art. 773. If, there being two or more donations,
the disposable portion is not sufficient to cover
all of them, those of the MORE RECENT DATE
shall be suppressed or reduced with regard to
the excess. (656)
Preference Given to Earlier Donations
Preference is given to earlier donations (fi rst come
first served). Therefore, if it is essential to reduce,
the subsequent ones must first be reduced.
Exception to Rule: Wedding gifts of jewelry,
clothing and outfit by parents and ascendants in
favor of descendants shall not be reduced (even if
they be more recent), provided they do not exceed
one tenth (1/10) of the free portion. (See Art. 1070).
Rule If Donations Were Perfected At the Same
Time
It is understood that if the donations were perfected
at the same time, the reduction must be
proportionate.
Exception: When preference is expressly stated
in the deed of donation itself.
GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION
a. Fulfillment of RESOLUTORY CONDITIONS
or charges. (Art. 764).
b. Ingratitude. (Art. 765).
GROUNDS FOR REDUCTION
(In some cases, TOTAL REDUCTION or
ABSORPTION making them appear to be cases of
REVOCATION):
a. B.A.R. (birth, adoption, reappearance). (Art.
760).
b. Inofficiousness. (Art. 771).
c. If insufficient property is left for support of
donor and his relatives. (Art. 750)
d. If made in fraud of creditors (creditors at the
time of the donation). (Art. 1387).
(4) Void, Ineffective, or Unperfected Donations:
(Bar)
a. Those not perfected in accordance with the
forms and solemnities of law (particularly when
there is no proper acceptance). (Example:
donations of land if not made in a public
instrument). (Art. 794).
b. Those made with property outside the
commerce of man.
c. Those made with future property (Art. 751)
except those provided for in marriage
settlements. (Art. 84, Family Code).
d. Those made to persons specially disqualified:
i. by reason of public policy. (Art. 739).
ii. by reason of unworthiness. (Art. 740).
iii. by reason of possible undue influence. (Art.
87, Family Code).
(Example — donations between spouses exceptin
certain instances).
Dumanon v. Butuan City Rural Bank
119 SCRA 193
An action to annul a donation prescribes in 4 years
from the date of discovery of the fraud. The
discovery of the fraud must be counted at the latest
from the time the deed is registered, because
registration is a notice to the entire world. Even if it
is proved that the registration of the deed of
donation had been made in bad faith, the action to
annul said registration prescribes in 4 years.— oOo
—