Scribd
Upload
127 views2 pages

Mateo Vs Lagua

This case involved a donation of two lots by parents to their son Alejandro upon his marriage to petitioner Bonifacia in 1917. After Alejandro died in 1923, his father Cipriano took possession of the lots. In 1941, Cipriano executed a deed selling the lots to his other son, respondent Gervacio, without petitioner's knowledge. The court ruled the sale invalid and ordered the lots returned to petitioner. However, the Court of Appeals reduced the donation, finding it prejudiced Gervacio's legitime share. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, finding there was insufficient evidence to determine if the donation exceeded the disposable portion without determining the net estate and

Uploaded by

EKANG
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views2 pages

Mateo Vs Lagua

This case involved a donation of two lots by parents to their son Alejandro upon his marriage to petitioner Bonifacia in 1917. After Alejandro died in 1923, his father Cipriano took possession of the lots. In 1941, Cipriano executed a deed selling the lots to his other son, respondent Gervacio, without petitioner's knowledge. The court ruled the sale invalid and ordered the lots returned to petitioner. However, the Court of Appeals reduced the donation, finding it prejudiced Gervacio's legitime share. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, finding there was insufficient evidence to determine if the donation exceeded the disposable portion without determining the net estate and

Uploaded by

EKANG
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

BONIFACIA MATEO vs.

GERVACIO LAGUA 29 SCRA 864 October 30, 1969

FACTS:

Sometime in 1917, the parents of Alejandro Lagua donated two lots to him in consideration of his
marriage to petitioner Bonifacia Mateo. The marriage was celebrated on May 15, 1917 and thereafter
the couple took possession of the lots, but the certificates of title remained in the donors name.

In 1923, Alejandro died, leaving behind his widow Bonifacia with their infant daughter, who lived with
the father-in-law Cipriano Lagua who in turn undertook to farm on the donated lots. At first, Cipriano
gave to Bonifacia the share from the lots harvests, but in 1926 he refused to deliver to petitioner the
said share, which reason prompted her to initiate an action and won for her possession of the lots plus
damages.

On July 31, 1941, Cipriano executed a deed of sale of the said lots in favor of his younger son, herein
respondent Gervacio. Petitioner learned of this only in 1956 when Cipriano stopped giving to petitioner
her share to the harvest. A Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued under respondents name by
the Registry of Deeds (ROD) of Pangasinan.

The CFI of Pangasinan declared the TCT issued to respondent null and void and ordered cancelled by the
ROD, and for respondent to vacate and deliver the lots to petitioner. In 1957, Gervacio and Cipriano
filed with the CFI for the annulment of the donation of the two lots. While the case was pending,
Cipriano died in 1958. It was dismissed for prescription, having been filed after the lapse of 41 years.
When appealed, the CA in 1966 held that the donation to Alejandro of the two lots with the combined
area of 11,888 sq. m. exceeded by 494.75 sq. m. his legitime and the disposable portion that Cipriano
could have freely given by will, and to the same extent prejudiced the legitime of Ciprianos other heir,
Gervacio. The donation was thus declared inofficious and herein petitioners were ordered to reconvey
to Gervacio a portion of 494.75 sq. m. from any convenient part of the lots.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly reduced the donation propter nuptias for being
inofficious.

HELD:
Decision of CA based on unsupported assumptions set aside; trial courts order of dismissal sustained.

Before the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, the net estate of the decedent must be
ascertained, by deducting all 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 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 donees share as legitime in the
properties of the donor. In the present case, it can hardly be seen 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. Article 908. 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 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.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy