Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    CALANASAN V DOLORITO

    Uploaded by

    Shana
    Cerila donated land to her niece Evelyn with the condition that Evelyn redeem the land for P15,000, and Cerila would have lifetime possession. Evelyn accepted. Later, Cerila sued Evelyn to revoke the donation, alleging Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) as the donation imposed an onerous obligation on Evelyn to redeem the land, the onerous portion is governed by contract law, not donation law; and (2) regardless, Cerila failed to prove the elements for revocation as the alleged acts of ingratitude were by Evelyn's husband against Cerila's sister, not Evelyn against Cerila.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CALANASAN V DOLORITO

    Uploaded by

    Shana
    106 views2 pages
    Cerila donated land to her niece Evelyn with the condition that Evelyn redeem the land for P15,000, and Cerila would have lifetime possession. Evelyn accepted. Later, Cerila sued Evelyn to revoke the donation, alleging Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) as the donation imposed an onerous obligation on Evelyn to redeem the land, the onerous portion is governed by contract law, not donation law; and (2) regardless, Cerila failed to prove the elements for revocation as the alleged acts of ingratitude were by Evelyn's husband against Cerila's sister, not Evelyn against Cerila.

    Original Title

    CALANASAN v DOLORITO.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cerila donated land to her niece Evelyn with the condition that Evelyn redeem the land for P15,000, and Cerila would have lifetime possession. Evelyn accepted. Later, Cerila sued Evelyn to revoke the donation, alleging Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) as the donation imposed an onerous obligation on Evelyn to redeem the land, the onerous portion is governed by contract law, not donation law; and (2) regardless, Cerila failed to prove the elements for revocation as the alleged acts of ingratitude were by Evelyn's husband against Cerila's sister, not Evelyn against Cerila.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    106 views2 pages

    CALANASAN V DOLORITO

    Uploaded by

    Shana
    Cerila donated land to her niece Evelyn with the condition that Evelyn redeem the land for P15,000, and Cerila would have lifetime possession. Evelyn accepted. Later, Cerila sued Evelyn to revoke the donation, alleging Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) as the donation imposed an onerous obligation on Evelyn to redeem the land, the onerous portion is governed by contract law, not donation law; and (2) regardless, Cerila failed to prove the elements for revocation as the alleged acts of ingratitude were by Evelyn's husband against Cerila's sister, not Evelyn against Cerila.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CALANASAN v.

    DOLORITO

    Cerila took care of her orphan niece, Evelyn since she was child. When Evelyn married in 1982,
    Cerila donated a piece of land to her with the condition that Evelyn must redeem the land which
    had been mortgaged for P15,000.00, and Cerila was entitled to possess the land as long as she
    lived. Evelyn accepted the donation and its terms. She redeemed the property, transferred it in
    her name, and granted usufractuary rights to Cerila. On August 15, 2002, Cerila filed a
    complaint against Evelyn, assisted by her sister Teodora, to revoke the donation on the ground
    that Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude against her. Evelyn denied committing any act of
    ingratitude. Because Cerila died while the case was pending, she was substituted by her sister
    Teodora. After Cerila rested her case, Evelyn filed a demurrer to evidence, citing that Cerila failed
    to prove that it was Evelyn who committed acts of ingratitude against Cerila. The RTC granted
    Evelyns demurrer to evidence, ruling that Art. 746 of the Civil Code does not apply because it
    was Evelyns husband Virgilio who committed the acts of ingratitude, and the same directed not
    against the donor but to her sister, Teodora. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC
    ruling but on a different ground, ruling that the donation was inter vivos and onerous, therefore,
    it must be treated as an ordinary contract, hence, Art. 745 of the Civil Code finds no application.
    Teodora elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court:

    Rules of contract govern the


    onerous portion of donation; rules of
    donation only apply to the excess, if any.

    We now come to the appreciation of the legal incidents of the donation vis--vis the alleged
    ungrateful acts.

    In Republic of the Phils. v. Silim, we classified donations according to purpose. A pure/simple


    donation is the truest form of donation as it is based on pure gratuity. The
    remuneratory/compensatory type has for its purpose the rewarding of the donee for past services,
    which services do not amount to a demandable debt. A conditional/modal donation, on the other
    hand, is a consideration for future services; it also occurs where the donor imposes certain
    conditions, limitations or charges upon the donee, whose value is inferior to the donation given.
    Lastly, an onerous donation imposes upon the donee a reciprocal obligation; this is made for a
    valuable consideration whose cost is equal to or more than the thing donated.

    In De Luna v. Judge Abrigo, we recognized the distinct, albeit old, characterization of onerous
    donations when we declared: Under the old Civil Code, it is a settled rule that donations with
    an onerous cause are governed not by the law on donations but by the rules on contracts, as
    held in the cases of Carlos v. Ramil, L-6736, September 5, 1911, 20 Phil. 183, Manalo vs. de Mesa,
    L-9449, February 12, 1915, 29 Phil. 495. In the same case, we emphasized the retention of the
    treatment of onerous types of donation, thus: The same rules apply under the New Civil Code
    as provided in Article 733 thereof which provides:

    Article 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on
    contracts, and remuneratory donations by the provisions of the present Title as
    regards that portion which exceeds the value of the burden imposed.

    We agree with the CA that since the donation imposed on the donee the burden of redeeming the
    property for P15,000.00, the donation was onerous. As an endowment for a valuable
    consideration, it partakes of the nature of an ordinary contract; hence, the rules of contract will
    govern and Article 765 of the New Civil Code finds no application with respect to the onerous
    portion of the donation.

    Insofar as the value of the land exceeds the redemption price paid for by the donee, a donation
    exists, and the legal provisions on donation apply. Nevertheless, despite the applicability of the
    provisions on donation to the gratuitous portion, the petitioner may not dissolve the
    donation. She has no factual and legal basis for its revocation, as aptly established by the RTC.
    First, the ungrateful acts were committed not by the donee; it was her husband who committed
    them. Second, the ungrateful acts were perpetrated not against the donor; it was the petitioners
    sister who received the alleged ill treatments. These twin considerations place the case out of
    the purview of Article 765 of the New Civil Code.

    You might also like