LAW ON PROPERTY | CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS 140 SCRA 245, NOVEMBER 22, 1985
CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS
140 SCRA 245, NOVEMBER 22, 1985
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Annulment or reduction of donation in case of subsequent adoption of a
minor by one who had previously donated some or all of his properties to
another, is within four (4) years from date of adoption if the donation impairs
the legitime of the adopted.
FACTS
In 1973, Eduvigis J. Cruz, a childless widow, donated a 235.5 sq.m.
residential lot in San Isidro, Taytay, Rizal together with the two-door
apartment erected thereon to her grandnieces, private respondents herein, in a
deed of donation entitled "Kasulatan Sa Kaloobpala". The property was
accordingly transferred to the names of private respondents. In 1974, Eduvigis
Cruz judicially adopted Cresencia Ocreto, a minor, after which she
extrajudicially tried to revoke the donation, but the donees resisted, alleging
that—
(a)the property in
question was co-owned by Eduvigis Cruz and her brother, the late Maximo Cruz,
grandfather of the donees, hence the latter own 1/2 of the property by
inheritance; and
(b)Eduvigis Cruz owns
another property, an agricultural land of more than two hectares situated in
Barrio Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, hence the donation did not impair the
presumptive legitime of the adopted child.
ISSUE
Whether there is basis for the
petition.
RULING
None.
The court ruled that annulment or reduction of donation in case of subsequent adoption of a
minor by one who had previously donated some or all of his properties to
another, is within four (4) years from date of adoption if the donation impairs
the legitime of the adopted. Donor has the burden to allege and establish the
requirements prescribed by law for which the annulment or reduction of the
donation can be based.
Here, the court ruled that unfortunately, in the case at bar, the
complaint for annulment does not allege that the subject donation impairs the
legitime of the adopted child. Indeed it contains no indication at all of the
total assets of the donor. Nor is there proof of impairment of legitime. On the
contrary, there is unrebutted evidence that the donor has another piece of land
(27,342 sq. m.) situated in Dolores, Taytay, Rizal worth P273,420.00 in 1977,
although then subject to litigation. The legal situation of petitioner-donor,
as plaintiff, is made worse by the factual finding of the Court of Appeals that
the grandfather of the donees was the owner pro indiviso of one-half of the donated land, the effect of
which is to reduce the value of the donation which can
then more easily be taken from the portion of the estate within the free
disposal of petitioner.