Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 285 views

    Vda de Tupas V RTC

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    The petitioner claimed the donation made by her deceased husband to the Tupas Foundation prior to his death was inofficious as it left her without any inheritance. The court ruled the donation was collationable and should be charged against the freely disposable portion of the estate. If the value of the donation exceeded this portion and impaired the petitioner's legitimate share as a compulsory heir, then it would be considered inofficious to the excess and must be reduced. The judgment was reversed and the petitioner was entitled to as much of the donated property as exceeded the freely disposable portion.

    Copyright:

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

    Vda de Tupas V RTC

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    285 views2 pages
    The petitioner claimed the donation made by her deceased husband to the Tupas Foundation prior to his death was inofficious as it left her without any inheritance. The court ruled the donation was collationable and should be charged against the freely disposable portion of the estate. If the value of the donation exceeded this portion and impaired the petitioner's legitimate share as a compulsory heir, then it would be considered inofficious to the excess and must be reduced. The judgment was reversed and the petitioner was entitled to as much of the donated property as exceeded the freely disposable portion.

    Original Title

    Vda De Tupas V RTC.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?

    The petitioner claimed the donation made by her deceased husband to the Tupas Foundation prior to his death was inofficious as it left her without any inheritance. The court ruled the donation was collationable and should be charged against the freely disposable portion of the estate. If the value of the donation exceeded this portion and impaired the petitioner's legitimate share as a compulsory heir, then it would be considered inofficious to the excess and must be reduced. The judgment was reversed and the petitioner was entitled to as much of the donated property as exceeded the freely disposable portion.

    Copyright:

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

    Vda de Tupas V RTC

    Uploaded by

    fay garneth buscato
    The petitioner claimed the donation made by her deceased husband to the Tupas Foundation prior to his death was inofficious as it left her without any inheritance. The court ruled the donation was collationable and should be charged against the freely disposable portion of the estate. If the value of the donation exceeded this portion and impaired the petitioner's legitimate share as a compulsory heir, then it would be considered inofficious to the excess and must be reduced. The judgment was reversed and the petitioner was entitled to as much of the donated property as exceeded the freely disposable portion.

    Copyright:

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

    Vda De Tupas V RTC

    No. L-55800/October 3, 1986

    I. Facts:

    August 20, 1978: Husband of petitioner Partenza Lucerna, Epifanio Tupas, died and left the wife
    as his only surviving compulsory heir .A will was left dated May 18, 1976- listed 3 lots of the Sagay
    Cadastre, as his private capital. However, at the time of his death, the lots subject in the said will
    were no longer owned by him, he having donated them the year before (on August 2, 1977) to the
    Tupas Foundation, Inc., which had thereafter obtained title to said lots.

    Claiming that said donation had left her practically destitute of any inheritance, Tupas' widow
    brought suit against Tupas Foundation, Inc. in the same Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental
    (docketed as Civil Case No. 16089) to have the donation declared inofficious insofar as it prejudiced
    her legitime, therefore reducible " ... by one-half or such proportion as ... (might be deemed)
    justified ... and " ... the resulting deduction ... " restored and conveyed or delivered to her. The
    complaint also prayed for attorney's fees and such other relief as might be proper.- TC dismissed
    the complaint.

    I. Issue: WON the donation is inofficious and can be reduced?


    II. Ruling:

    Yes. A person’s prerogative to make donation is subject to certain limitations.

    Under Article 752 of the CC: He cannot give donation more than he can give by will. If he did so,
    what is donated as exceeds what he can give by wills is deemed inofficious and the donation
    reducible to the excess (though without prejudice to its taking effect in the donor’s lifetime or the
    donee’s appropriating the fruits of the thing donated ( Art 771)

    Although the language of Art 1061 seems to limit the collation only to compulsory heirs, the
    established rule in Liguez v CA held that it also applies to donations to strangers. Therefore, Tupas
    Foundation cannot assert that the donated property no longer formed part of Tupas’ estate at the
    time of his death to prevent its being brought to collation. Collation contemplated and particularly
    applies to gifts inter vivos. The donation is collationable and made to a stranger. Since it is made to
    a stranger, it should be chargeable to the freely disposable portion of the donor’s estate, to be
    reduced insofar as inofficious (i.e. exceeds said portion and impairs legitimate of compulsory heirs)

    To find out WN its innoficious, recourse must be had to the rules established by the Civil Code (art
    908-910). Deducting the legitimates form the net value of the hereditary estate leaves the freely
    disposable portion by which the donation in question must be measured. ( If value doesn’t exceed
    the difference, then it must be allowed to stand; if it does, it’s innoficious as to the excess and must
    be reduced). If any excess is shown, it shall be reverted to the petitioner.

    The judgment was reversed and petitioner entitled to so much of the donated property in question
    as may be found in excess of the freely, disposable portion of the estate.
    Provision: Art. 900. If the only survivor is the widow or widower, she or he shall be entitled to
    one-half of the hereditary estate of the deceased spouse, and the testator may freely dispose
    of the other half

    Art. 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.

    - Claim of inofficious- claim that donor gave more than what was within his power to
    give
    - Such donation is also collationable- value is imputed into the hereditary estate of the
    donor at the time of his death for the purpose of determining the legitime of the forced
    or compulsory heirs and the freely disposable portion of the estate

    You might also like