G.R. No. 154942 August 16, 2005
ROLANDO SANTOS, Petitioners,
vs.
CONSTANCIA SANTOS ALANA, Respondent.
Doctrines:
(1) Findings of fact by the trial court, especially when
affirmed on appeal, are conclusive and binding.
(2) It bears reiterating that under article 752 of the civil
code, the donation is inofficious if it exceeds this limitation — no person may
give or receive, by way of donation, more than he may give or receive by will.
(3) Under article 1144 of the civil code, actions upon an obligation created by law must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. Thus, the ten-year prescriptive period applies to the obligation to reduce inofficious donations, required under article 771 of the civil code, to the extent that they impair the legitime of compulsory heirs.
(4) From when shall the ten-year period be reckoned? In mateo vs. Lagua, involving the reduction, for inofficiousness, of a donation propter nuptias, we held that the cause of action to enforce a legitime accrues upon the death of the donor-decedent.
Synopsis:
Rolando Santos and Constancia Santos Alana are in a dispute over a 39-square meter lot in Manila that was registered in the name of their late father Gregorio Santos. Gregorio first donated the lot to Rolando in 1978, which was later sold to him in 1981. The original title was cancelled and TCT No. 144706 was issued in Rolando's name. Constancia filed a complaint for partition and reconveyance, alleging that her father did not sell the lot to Rolando and that the donation was inofficious as it exceeded the limitation of what can be freely disposed by will. The trial court found the donation to be inofficious, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, rejecting Rolando's argument that the suit was barred by prescription. The parties are now ordered to settle Gregorio's estate and partition it.
The legal issues in this case involve the determination of whether the donation made by Gregorio is inofficious and if the respondent's action to contest the donation has prescribed. The donation is considered inofficious if it exceeds the amount that can be given by will, as stated in Article 752 of the Civil Code. In this case, the court found that the donation is inofficious as it impairs the respondent's legitime. The respondent's action to contest the donation is not controlled by a specific prescriptive period and thus the ordinary rules of prescription apply. The ten-year prescriptive period to bring an action upon an obligation created by law, as stated in Article 1144 of the Civil Code, applies to the obligation to reduce inofficious donations. The ten-year period is calculated from the death of the donor, Gregorio, and the respondent filed her action within the prescriptive period in 1992, which was well within the ten-year period that ended in 1996.
Nature of Petition:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision dated March 7, 2002 and Resolution dated July 24, 2002 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 40728.
Facts:
Rolando Santos and Constancia Santos Alana are half-siblings disputing their claim over a 39-square meter lot in Manila that was registered in the name of their late father Gregorio Santos. Gregorio donated the lot to Rolando on January 16, 1978, which was annotated on the title, and later sold it to him on April 8, 1981. As a result, the original title was cancelled and TCT No. 144706 was issued in Rolando's name by the Registry of Deeds of Manila.
Constancia Santos filed a complaint for partition and reconveyance against the petitioner, alleging that her father, Gregorio, did not sell the lot to the petitioner, and that she learned of the donation in 1978. The petitioner argued that the suit was barred by prescription because he has been in possession of the lot as owner for over 10 years. The trial court found that the Deed of Absolute Sale was not a valid contract, but the Deed of Donation was valid and executed by the parties. However, since Gregorio did not own any other property, the donation to the petitioner was inofficious as it impaired Constancia's legitime. The trial court ordered the Registry of Deeds to cancel the Deed of Donation, and the parties were ordered to settle the Estate of Gregorio and partition the estate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the only valid agreement was the Deed of Donation and that the donation was inofficious as it exceeded the limitation of what can be freely disposed by will. The petitioner's argument that Constancia's suit was barred by prescription was also rejected. Hence, this Petition.
Issue/s:
(1) whether the donation is inofficious; and - YES
(2) whether the respondent’s action has prescribed. - NO
Held:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The challenged Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 40728 are hereby AFFIRMED, with modification in the sense that the subject deed of donation being inofficious, one half (1/2) of the lot covered by TCT No. 14278 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila is awarded to Constancia Santos Alana, respondent, the same being her legitime. The remaining one-half (1/2) shall be retained by petitioner, Rolando Santos, as his legitime and by virtue of the donation.
(1)
YES. In this case, the court found that the donation is inofficious as it impairs the respondent's legitime.
It bears reiterating that under Article 752 of the Civil Code, the donation is inofficoius if it exceeds this limitation – no person may give or receive, by way of donation, more than he may give or receive by will. In Imperial vs. Court of Appeals,we held that inofficiousness may arise only upon the death of the donor as the value of donation may then be contrasted with the net value of the estate of the donor deceased.
At this point, we emphasize that as found by the trial court, Gregorio did not sell the lot to petitioner. He donated it. The trial court also found that the donation is inofficious as it impairs respondent’s legitime; that at the time of Gregorio’s death, he left no property other than the lot now in controversy he donated to petitioner; and that the deceased made no reservation for the legitime of respondent, his daughter and compulsory heir. These findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Pursuant to Article 752 earlier cited, Gregorio could not donate more than he may give by will. Clearly, by donating the entire lot to petitioner, we agree with both lower courts that Gregorio’s donation is inofficious as it deprives respondent of her legitime, which, under Article 888 of the Civil Code, consists of one-half (1/2) of the hereditary estate of the father and the mother. Since the parents of both parties are already dead, they will inherit the entire lot, each being entitled to one-half (1/2) thereof.
(2)
NO. The ten-year period is calculated from the death of the donor, Gregorio, and the respondent filed her action within the prescriptive period in 1992, which was well within the ten-year period that ended in 1996.
In Imperial vs. Court of Appeals,we held that "donations, the reduction of which hinges upon the allegation of impairment of legitime (as in this case), are not controlled by a particular prescriptive period, for which reason, we must resort to the ordinary rules of prescription. Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, actions upon an obligation created by law must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. Thus, the ten-year prescriptive period applies to the obligation to reduce inofficious donations, required under Article 771 of the Civil Code,to the extent that they impair the legitime of compulsory heirs.
From when shall the ten-year period be reckoned? In Mateo vs. Lagua, involving the reduction, for inofficiousness, of a donation propter nuptias, we held that the cause of action to enforce a legitime accrues upon the death of the donor-decedent. Clearly so, since it is only then that the net estate may be ascertained and on which basis, the legitimes may be determined.
Here, Gregorio died in 1986. Consequently, respondent had until 1996 within which to file the action. Records show that she filed her suit in 1992, well within the prescriptive period.