Mateo v Lagua

Facts:
Cipriano Lagua and his wife Alejandra Dumlao, in a public instrument, donated the two parcels of land to
their son Alejandro Lagua, in consideration of the latter’s marriage to Bonifacia Mateo. The couple took
possession of the properties, but the Certificates of Title remained in the donor’s name. Cipriano Lagua
later executed a deed of sale of the same two parcels of land in favor of his younger son, Gervasio. TCTs
were issued to Gervasio. Bonifacia Mateo and her daughter, Anatalia, sought the annulment of the deed of
sale in favor of Gervasio Lagua and for recovery of possession of the properties which was granted by the
court. The decision became final, and Bonifacia Mateo, and her daughter, Anatalia Lagua, were installed
in possession of the land.

Gervasio Lagua and Cipriano Lagua, filed a complaint for annulment of the donation of the two lots,
insofar as one-half portion thereof was concerned claiming that in donating the two lots, said plaintiff not
only neglected leaving something for his own support but also prejudiced the legitime of his forced heir,
plaintiff Gervasio Lagua. While the cases were pending, plaintiff Cipriano Lagua died. The Court of
Appeals held that the donation to Alejandro Lagua of the 2 lots prejudiced the legitime of Cipriano’s
other heir, Gervasio Lagua. The donation was thus declared inofficious, and defendants-appellees were
ordered to reconvey to plaintiff Gervasio Lagua a portion of 494.15 square meters to be taken from any
convenient part of the lots.

ISSUE: Is the court of appeals ruling on the inofficiousness of the donation proper?

No. ART. 908 of the civil code provides that to determine the legitime, the value of the property left at the
death of the testator shall be considered, deducting all debts, and charges, which shall not include those
imposed in the will. To the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the value of all donations by
the testator that are subject to collation, at the time he made them.

In other words, before any conclusion about the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is
necessary that certain steps be taken first. The net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, by
deducting payable obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the
time of his death; then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it. With the partible estate thus
determined, the legitimes of the compulsory heir or heirs can be established; and only thereafter can it be
ascertained whether or not a donation had prejudiced the legitimes.

Certainly, in order that a donation may be reduced for being inofficious, there must be proof that the value
of the donated property exceeds that of the disposable free portion plus the donee’s share as legitime in
the properties of the donor. In the present case, it can hardly be said that, with the evidence
then before the court, it was in any position to rule on the inofficiousness of the donation involved here,
and to order its reduction and reconveyance of the deducted portion to the respondents.

Vda. De Tupas v RTC Negros

Facts
• August 20, 1978: Husband of petitioner Partenza Lucerna, Epifanio Tupas, died and left Partenza as
his only surviving compulsory heir
 o Left a will dated May 18, 1976
• The will listed 3 lots of the Sagay Cadastre (Negros Occidental) as his private capital. However,
at the time of his death, these were no longer owned by him.
o Previously donated them a year before (August 2, 1977) to the Tupas Foundation, Inc,
which had thereafter obtained a title on the lots
• Petitioner claims that the donation had left her practically destitute of any inheritance so she filed
a suit against Tupas Foundation in the CFI to have the donation declared inofficious
• TC: Dismissed the complaint
o See chart for arguments

Arguments
Petitioner Respondent (RTC)

The donation left her little inheritance therefore it should Art 900 is not applicable because the properties were no
be declared inofficious insofar as it prejudiced her longer part of Tupas’ hereditary estate at the time of his
legitime. death.

Donation should be reducible by one-half or such Since Tupas Foundation was a stranger and not a
proportion as may be justified. The reduction should be compulsory heir, the donation intervivos made in its
restored and reconveyed to her. favor was not subject to collation under Art 1061.

Relied on Art 900 and Art 1061

Issue: WN the donation is inofficious and can be reduced – YES

Ratio
• A person’s prerogative to make donation is subject to certain limitations
• I.E. Art 752, CC: He cannot give by donation more than he can give by will.
o If he did so, what is donated as exceeds what he can give by will is deemed inofficious
and the donation is 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))
▪ Claim of inofficious – claim that donor gave more than what was within his
power to give
o Such a donation is also collationable
▪ Collationable – value is imputed into the hereditary estate od 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
• 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
• ITC: 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 legitime of compulsory heirs)
 • To find out WN its inofficious, recourse must be had to the rules established by the Civil Code
(Art 908-910)
• Deducting the legitimes from the net value of the hereditary estate leaves the freely disposable
portion by which the donation in question must be measured
o If value doesn’t exceed the difference, then it must be allowed to stand
o 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

Ruling: Judgment 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, REMAND to the TC

Pecson v. Mediavillo
Facts:
The last will and testament of Florencio Pecson was presented to the Court of First Instance of the
Province of Albay for probate. Mr. Tomas Lorayes, an attorney at law, opposed the legislation of the will
on the ground that it had not been authorized nor signed by the deceased. After hearing the respective
parties, the Honorable Percy M. Moir (judge) found that the will had been signed and executed in
accordance with the provisions of law, and denied the opposition .

Lorayes, representing Basiliso Mediavillo and Rosario Mediavillo, presented a motion averring:
• That Rosario is and Joaquin was the grandchild of the testator, Florencio Pecson
• That Rosario, was disinherited by Florencio, according to clause 3 of the will, because she failed
to show him due respect and on a certain occasion raised her hand against him

Paragraph 3 of the will disinherited Rosario Mediavillo states:

I declare that one of my daughters, named Teresa, now deceased, left a legitimate daughter named
Rosario Mediavillo. I also declare that I disinherit my granddaughter, Rosario, because she was grossly
disrespectful to me and because on one occasion, when it was I do not remember, she raised her hand
against me. Therefore, it is my will that the said Rosario Mediavillo shall have no share in my property.
• That the interested party did not commit such an act, and if perhaps she did, it was due to the
derangement of her mental faculties which occurred a long time ago and from which she now
suffers in periodical attacks.

It also appears from the evidence that Teresa (daughter of Florencio, mother of Rosario) also died. Her
son Joaquin died, unmarried and childless, before the death of the testator.

The lower court found out that the evidence shows that Rosario became insane in 1895, when she went to
Nueva Caceres to study in college, and it has been proved that it was previous to this date that she
disobeyed her grandfather and raised her hand against him. But since she was 14 years old, and shortly
afterwards became insane, she was not responsible for her acts and should not have been disinherited by
her grandfather.

The court therefore decreed that clause 3 of the will is contrary to law and is set aside for being of no
force or value whatever.
Issue:

Whether or not the courts, when a parent disinherits his children, may inquire into the cause of the
disinheritance and decide that there was or was not ground for such disinheritance.

Held:

Yes. The Civil Code (Art. 848) provides that disinheritance shall only take place for one of the causes
expressly fixed by law. Article 849 of the Civil Code provides that the disinheritance can only be effected
by the testament, in which shall be mentioned the legal grounds or causes for such disinheritance. The
right of the courts to inquire into the causes and whether there was sufficient cause for the disinheritance
or not, seems to be supported by express provisions of the Civil Code. Disinheritance made without
statement of the reason, or for a cause the truth of which, if contradicted, should not be proven shall annul
the designation of heirship, in so far as it prejudices the person disinherited.

In the case, It appears from the record that when Rosario Mediavillo was about 14 years of age, she had
received some attentions from a young man – that she had received a letter from him – and that her
grandfather, Florencio, took occasion to talk to her about the relations between her and the said young
man. It was upon that occasion when the disobedience and disrespect were shown to her grandfather, and
that was the cause for her disinheritance by her grandfather. The record shows that after said event, she
lost the use of her mental powers and that she has never regained them, except for very brief periods, up
to the present time.

The lower court is correct in taking into consideration her tender years, that she was probably not
responsible for the disrespect and disobedience shown to her grandfather in the year 1894 or 1895.