Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 975 views

    55 de Roma vs. CA GR No. L-46903

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Micaela Binuya
    1) The case involved a dispute over whether donated properties should be included in the estate of Candelaria de Roma, who died intestate. 2) Candelaria had donated seven parcels of land to her adopted daughter Buhay de Roma. Upon Candelaria's death, her other adopted daughter Rosalinda argued the properties should be included in the estate. 3) The court ruled that the deed of donation contained no express prohibition against including the donated properties in the estate, as required by law. Therefore, the properties must be included in the estate and divided equally between the two daughters.

    Copyright:

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

    55 de Roma vs. CA GR No. L-46903

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Micaela Binuya
    975 views2 pages
    1) The case involved a dispute over whether donated properties should be included in the estate of Candelaria de Roma, who died intestate. 2) Candelaria had donated seven parcels of land to her adopted daughter Buhay de Roma. Upon Candelaria's death, her other adopted daughter Rosalinda argued the properties should be included in the estate. 3) The court ruled that the deed of donation contained no express prohibition against including the donated properties in the estate, as required by law. Therefore, the properties must be included in the estate and divided equally between the two daughters.

    Original Description:

    55 de Roma vs. CA Gr No. L-46903

    Original Title

    55 de Roma vs. CA Gr No. L-46903

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a dispute over whether donated properties should be included in the estate of Candelaria de Roma, who died intestate. 2) Candelaria had donated seven parcels of land to her adopted daughter Buhay de Roma. Upon Candelaria's death, her other adopted daughter Rosalinda argued the properties should be included in the estate. 3) The court ruled that the deed of donation contained no express prohibition against including the donated properties in the estate, as required by law. Therefore, the properties must be included in the estate and divided equally between the two daughters.

    Copyright:

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

    55 de Roma vs. CA GR No. L-46903

    Uploaded by

    Ma. Micaela Binuya
    1) The case involved a dispute over whether donated properties should be included in the estate of Candelaria de Roma, who died intestate. 2) Candelaria had donated seven parcels of land to her adopted daughter Buhay de Roma. Upon Candelaria's death, her other adopted daughter Rosalinda argued the properties should be included in the estate. 3) The court ruled that the deed of donation contained no express prohibition against including the donated properties in the estate, as required by law. Therefore, the properties must be included in the estate and divided equally between the two daughters.

    Copyright:

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

    55

    De Roma vs. CA
    G.R. No. L-46903 152 SCRA 205
    July 23, 1987
    CRUZ, J:

    Testator: Candelaria de Roma, April 30,1971


    Proponent: Felicidad Caringal
    Oppositor: Rosalinda de Roma
    Type of Succession: Intestate

    FACTS:
    Candelaria de Roma had two legally adopted daughters, Buhay de Roma and Rosalinda de Roma.
    She died intestate on April 30, 1971, and administration proceedings were instituted in the Court of First
    Instance of Laguna by the private respondent as guardian of Rosalinda. Buhay was appointed administrator
    and in due time filed an inventory of the estate. This was opposed by Rosalinda on the ground that certain
    properties earlier donated by Candelaria to Buhay, and the fruits thereof, had not been included
    The properties in question consisted of seven parcels of coconut , what the parties cannot agree upon
    is whether these lands are subject to collation. The private respondent rigorously argues that it is,
    conformably to Article 1061 of the Civil Code. Buhay, for her part, citing Article 1062, claims she has no
    obligation to collate because the decedent prohibited such collation and the donation was not officious.
    The two articles provide as follows:
    Article 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring
    into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent
    during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may
    be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition.
    Article 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor should have
    so expressly provided, or if the donor should repudiate the inheritance, unless the donation should be
    reduced as inofficious.
    The issue was resolved in favor of Buhay, which held that the decedent, when she made the donation
    in favor of Buhay, expressly prohibited collation. Moreover, the donation did not impair the legitimes of the
    two adopted daughters as it could be accommodated in the free portion of Candelaria's estate.
    On appeal, the Court held that the deed of donation contained no express prohibition to collate as an
    exception to Article 1062. Accordingly, it ordered collation and equally divided the net estate of the
    decedent, including the fruits of the donated property, between Buhay and Rosalinda.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not there was an express prohibition to collate.

    RULING:
    None, there is nothing in the deed of donation executed by Candelaria that expressly prohibits the
    collation of the donated properties.

    The pertinent portions of the deed of donation are as follows:


    IKALAWA. Na alang-alang sa aking pagmamahal, pagtingin at pagsisilbi sa akin ng aking
    anak na si BUHAY DE ROMA, kasal kay Arabella Castaneda, may karampatang gulang,
    mamamayang Pilipino at naninirahan at may pahatirang-sulat din dito sa Lunsod ng San Pablo sa
    pamamagitan ng kasulatang ito ay kusang-loob kong ibinibigay, ipinagkakaloob at inililipat sa
    nabanggit na BUHAY DE ROMA, sa kanyang mga kahalili at tagapagmana, sa pamamagitan ng
    pagbibigay na di na mababawing muli, ang lahat ng mga lagay ng lupa na sinasabi sa itaas, sa ilalim
    ng kasunduan na ngayon pa ay siya na ang nagmamay-aring tunay ng mga lupang ito at kanya nang
    maaring ipalipat ang mga hoja declaratoria ng mga lupang ito sa kanyang pangalan, datapwa't
    samantalang ako ay nabubuhay, ay ako rin ang makikinabang sa mga mapuputi at mamomosesion sa
    mga nasabing lupa;
    As the said court correctly observed, the phrase "sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay na di na
    mababawing muli" merely described the donation as "irrevocable" and should not be construed as an express
    prohibition against collation. The fact that a donation is irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the subject
    thereof from the collation required under Article 1061.
    Anything less than such express prohibition will not suffice under the clear language of Article 1062.
    The suggestion that there was an implied prohibition because the properties donated were imputable to the
    free portion of the decedent's estate merits little consideration. Imputation is not the question here, nor is it
    claimed that the disputed donation is officious The sole issue is whether or not there was an express
    prohibition to collate, and we see none.

    DOCTRINE/PRINCIPLE:
    The intention to exempt from collation should be expressed plainly and unequivocally as an
    exception to the general rule announced in Article 1062. Absent such a clear indication of that intention, we
    apply not the exception but the rule, which is categorical enough.

    Digested by: Micaela Binuya

    You might also like