176

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santos vs. Alana
*

G.R. No. 154942. August 16, 2005.

ROLANDO SANTOS, petitioner,
SANTOS ALANA, respondent.

vs.

CONSTANCIA

Actions Pleading and Practice Appeals Basic is it that

findings of fact by the trial court, especially when affirmed on
appeal, as in this case, are conclusive and binding upon this
Court.The findings of the courts below that (1) Gregorio donated
to petitioner the subject lot (2) the Deed of Absolute Sale is void
and (3) Gregorios only property is the said lotare all factual in
nature which are not within the domain of this Court for it is not
a trier of facts. Basic is it that findings of fact by the trial court,
especially when affirmed on appeal, as in this case, are conclusive
and binding upon this Court.
Civil Law Contracts Donations 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 what
he may give or receive by will.Under Article 752 of the Civil
Code, the donation is inofficious if it exceeds this limitationno
person may
_______________
*

THIRD DIVISION.

177

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005

177

Santos vs. Alana

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.
Same Same Same Prescription Under Article 1144 of the
Civil Code, actions upon an obligation created by law must be
brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action
accrues.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 tenyear
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.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Lucrecia P. Santos for petitioner.
Office of the Legal Aid for respondent.
SANDOVALGUTIERREZ, J.:
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, as amended,
1
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.
A brief narration of the factual antecedents follows:
Rolando Santos, petitioner, and Constancia Santos
Alana, respondent, are halfblood siblings both asserting
their claim over a 39square meter lot located at 1339B
Andalucia St., Sta. Cruz, Manila. It was registered in the
name of their fa
_______________
1

Penned by Associate Justice Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. and concurred in

by Associate Justices Mercedes GozoDadole and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr.

178

178

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santos vs. Alana

ther, Gregorio Santos, under Transfer Certificate of Title

(TCT) No. 14278 of the Registry of Deeds of Manila. He
died intestate on March 10, 1986.
During his lifetime, or on January 16, 1978, Gregorio
donated the lot to petitioner which the latter accepted on

June 30, 1981. The deed of donation (Pagsasalin ng

Karapatan at Pagaari) was annotated on Gregorios title.
On April 8, 1981, Gregorio sold the lot to petitioner as
per a Deed of Absolute Sale.
On June 26, 1981, by virtue of the annotated deed of
donation, TCT No. 14278 in Gregorios name was cancelled
and in lieu thereof, TCT No. 144706 was issued by the
Registry of Deeds of Manila in petitioners name.
On January 11, 1991, respondent Constancia Santos
filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 15, a
complaint for partition and reconveyance against
petitioner. She alleged that during his lifetime, her father
Gregorio denied having sold the lot to petitioner that she
learned of the donation in 1978 and that the donation is
inofficious as she was deprived of her legitime.
In his answer, petitioner countered that respondents
suit is barred by prescription considering that she is aware
that he has been in possession of the lot as owner for more
than ten (10) years and that the lot was sold to him by his
father, hence, respondent can no longer claim her legitime.
The trial court found that the Deed of Absolute Sale was
not signed by the parties nor was it registered in the
Registry of Deeds. Thus, it is not a valid contract. What is
valid is the deed of donation as it was duly executed by the
parties and registered.
The trial court then held that since Gregorio did not own
any other property, the donation to petitioner is inofficious
because it impaired respondents legitime.
The dispositive portion of the trial courts Decision
reads:
179

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005

179

Santos vs. Alana

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered declaring the Deed of Donation inofficious insofar as it
impair the legitime of the plaintiff which is 1/2 of the subject
property.
The Registry of Deeds of Manila is hereby ordered to cancel the
entry in TCT No. 14278 of the Deed of Donation dated January
16, 1978 and to cancel TCT No. 144706 issued based on said
entry.
The parties are enjoined to institute the proper action for the
settlement of the Estate
of Gregorio Santos and for the eventual
2
partition of the estate.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts

Decision, holding that:
There are in the instant case two documents by which the subject
property was purportedly transferred to the defendanta deed of
donation and a deed of sale.
xxx
There can, therefore, be no way by which the appellant
may successfully convince us that Gregorio Santos sold the
property in dispute to him and such sale can bind the
appellee so as to remove the case from the realm of the law
on donations.
Moreover, as aptly put by the trial court:
In general one who has disposed his property would not and could not
have disposed the same again unless the previous act was rendered
invalid or ineffective.
The validity of the Deed of Donation was never assailed by the
defendant. In fact, it was impliedly recognized as valid by defendant by
registering the same to the Registry of Deeds.
It is the honest belief of this Court, given the circumstances, i.e., the
existence of the vendor and the vendee in the Deed of Absolute Sale and
the registration of the Deed of Donation despite the supposed previous
execution of (the) Deed of Absolute Sale, that there was no valid deed
of sale executed and that the true and real agreement between
Gregorio Santos and Rolando Santos was that of a donation.
_______________
2

Rollo at pp. 4142.

180

180

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santos vs. Alana

Furthermore, considering that defendant himself registered the Deed of

Donation, he cannot now close his eyes and deny the existence of the
same by alleging that there had been a deed of sale executed previously.
(Appealed Decision, supra, at pp. 238239)

xxx
While a person may dispose of his property by donation, there
is a limitation to the same. The law provides that no person may
give or receive, by way of donation, more than he may give or
receive by will, and any donation which may exceed the foregoing
is considered inofficious. x x x The donation shall be inofficious in
all that it may exceed this limitation. (Article 752, Civil Code) The

said donation may correspondingly be reduced insofar as it

exceeds the portion that may be freely disposed of by will (ART.
761).
xxx
It has been undisputedly shown that the subject property was
the only property of the deceased Gregorio Santos at the time of
his death on March 10, 1986 (Exhibit K, Original Record, p. 163)
and that he made no reservation for the legitime of the plaintiff
appellee, his daughter (See paragraph 2, Complaint and
paragraph 2, Answer, Ibid., at pp. 1 and 12) and compulsory heir.
Clearly, the rule on officiousness applies. x x x
xxx
Defendantappellant finally argues that since plaintiffappellee
knew of the donation since 1978, while the donor Gregorio Santos
was still alive, her assailing the said donation only on January 11,
1991 or thirteen years after, has effectively barred her from
instituting the present action. The foregoing is apparently
groundless and without merit.
The inofficiousness of a donation cannot be determined until
after the death of the donor because prior to his death, the value
of his estate cannot be determined or computed. Determination of
the value of the deceaseds estate will require the collation of all
properties or rights, donated or conveyed by gratuitous title to the
compulsory heirs in order that they may be included in the
computation for the determination of the legitime of3 each heir and
for the account of partition (Art. 1061, Civil Code).
_______________
3

Rollo at p. 76.
181

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005

181

Santos vs. Alana

Hence, the instant petition.

The findings of the courts below that (1) Gregorio
donated to petitioner the subject lot (2) the Deed of
Absolute Sale is void and (3) Gregorios only property is
the said lotare all factual in nature which are not 4within
the domain of this Court for it is not a trier of facts. Basic
is it that findings of fact by the trial court, especially when
affirmed on appeal, as 5 in this case, are conclusive and
binding upon this Court.
The issues which involve questions of law are: (1)
whether the donation is inofficious and (2) whether the
respondents action has prescribed.

I. Whether the donation is inofficious.

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. In Imperial
6
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 respondents legitime that at the time of
Gregorios 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.
_______________
Barbacina vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135365, August 31, 2004,

437 SCRA 300.

Bordalba vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112443, January 25, 2002,

374 SCRA 555 OcampoPaule vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145872,
February 4, 2002, 376 SCRA 83.
6

G.R. No. 112483, October 8, 1999, 316 SCRA 393.

182

182

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Santos vs. Alana

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 Gregorios donation is inofficious as it deprives
respondent of her legitime, which, under Article 888 of the
Civil Code, consists of onehalf (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 onehalf (1/2) thereof.
II. Whether respondents suit is barred 7by prescription.
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 8donations, required under Article 771 of the
Civil Code, to the extent that they impair the legitime of
compulsory heirs.
From when shall 9the tenyear 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
_______________
7
8

Supra.
Art. 771. Donations which in accordance with the provisions of

Article 752, are inofficious bearing in mind the estimated net value of the
donors 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 Articles 911 and 912 of this Code shall govern.
9

L26270, October 30, 1969, 29 SCRA 864.

183

VOL. 467, AUGUST 16, 2005

183

Santos vs. Alana

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.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The challenged
Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CAG.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 onehalf (1/2) shall be retained by
petitioner, Rolando Santos, as his legitime and by virtue of
the donation.
Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (Chairman), Corona, CarpioMorales
and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, challenged decision and resolution
affirmed with modification.
Note.Where it has been established by preponderance
of evidence that two persons lived together as husband and
wife without a valid marriage, the inescapable conclusion is
that the donation made by one in favor of the other is void
under Article 87 of the Family Code. (Quilala vs.
Alcantara, 371 SCRA 311 [2001])
o0o
184

Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.