Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Eloy Imperial Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    girl
    The Supreme Court ruled that Victor Imperial, the adopted son of Leoncio Imperial, did not tacitly renounce his legitime or inheritance rights when he substituted for his father in a case related to a land donation. Under the Civil Code, renunciation of an inheritance must be express and in an authentic document or court petition. As Victor merely participated in executing a compromise judgment and was not a party to the original agreement, his actions did not constitute renunciation. His heirs also retained the right to seek reduction of the donation under the Code if it impaired Victor's legitime. The private respondents were not entitled to a share of the donated property even if it was reduced.

    Copyright:

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

    Eloy Imperial Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    girl
    39 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Victor Imperial, the adopted son of Leoncio Imperial, did not tacitly renounce his legitime or inheritance rights when he substituted for his father in a case related to a land donation. Under the Civil Code, renunciation of an inheritance must be express and in an authentic document or court petition. As Victor merely participated in executing a compromise judgment and was not a party to the original agreement, his actions did not constitute renunciation. His heirs also retained the right to seek reduction of the donation under the Code if it impaired Victor's legitime. The private respondents were not entitled to a share of the donated property even if it was reduced.

    Original Description:

    SUCCESSION

    Original Title

    Eloy Imperial vs Court of Appeals

    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 Supreme Court ruled that Victor Imperial, the adopted son of Leoncio Imperial, did not tacitly renounce his legitime or inheritance rights when he substituted for his father in a case related to a land donation. Under the Civil Code, renunciation of an inheritance must be express and in an authentic document or court petition. As Victor merely participated in executing a compromise judgment and was not a party to the original agreement, his actions did not constitute renunciation. His heirs also retained the right to seek reduction of the donation under the Code if it impaired Victor's legitime. The private respondents were not entitled to a share of the donated property even if it was reduced.

    Copyright:

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

    Eloy Imperial Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    girl
    The Supreme Court ruled that Victor Imperial, the adopted son of Leoncio Imperial, did not tacitly renounce his legitime or inheritance rights when he substituted for his father in a case related to a land donation. Under the Civil Code, renunciation of an inheritance must be express and in an authentic document or court petition. As Victor merely participated in executing a compromise judgment and was not a party to the original agreement, his actions did not constitute renunciation. His heirs also retained the right to seek reduction of the donation under the Code if it impaired Victor's legitime. The private respondents were not entitled to a share of the donated property even if it was reduced.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    ELOY IMPERIAL vs COURT OF APPEALS

    G.R. No. 112483, October 8, 1999


    GONZAGA-REYES, J.:

    FACTS:
    Leoncio Imperial was the registered owner of a 32,837-square meter
    parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 200, also
    known as Lot 45 of the Cadastral Survey of Albay. On July 7, 1951,
    Leoncio sold the said lot for P1.00 to his acknowledged natural son,
    petitioner herein, who then acquired title over the land and
    proceeded to subdivide it into several lots. Petitioner and private
    respondents admit that despite the contract's designation as one of
    "Absolute Sale", the transaction was in fact a donation.

    On January 8, 1962, Leoncio died, leaving only two heirs — the


    herein petitioner, who is his acknowledged natural son, and an
    adopted son, Victor Imperial. On March 8, 1962, Victor was
    substituted in place of Leoncio in the above-mentioned case, and it
    was he who moved for execution of judgment. On March 15, 1962,
    the motion for execution was duly granted.

    Fifteen years thereafter, or on July 26, 1977, Victor died single and
    without issue, survived only by his natural father, Ricardo Villalon,
    who was a lessee of a portion of the disputed land. Four years hence,
    or on September 25, 1981, Ricardo died, leaving as his only heirs his
    two children, Cesar and Teresa Villalon. Five years thereafter, or
    sometime in 1986, Cesar and Teresa filed a complaint for annulment
    of the donation with the Regional Trial Court.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not there is a renunciation of legitime that may be
    presumed in the case.

    RULING:
    No. It must be remembered that at the time of the substitution, the
    judgment approving the compromise agreement has already been
    rendered. Victor merely participated in the execution of the
    compromise judgment. He was not a party to the compromise
    agreement.

    More importantly, our law on succession does not countenance tacit


    repudiation of inheritance. Rather, it requires an express act on the
    part of the heir. Thus, under Article 1051 of Civil Code:

    The repudiation of an inheritance shall be made in a public or


    authentic instrument, or by petition presented to the court having
    jurisdiction over the testamentary or intestate proceedings.

    Thus, when Victor substituted Leoncio in Civil Case No. 1177 upon
    the latter's death, his act of moving for execution of the compromise
    judgment cannot be considered an act of renunciation of his legitime.
    He was, therefore, not precluded or estopped from subsequently
    seeking the reduction of the donation, under Article 772. Nor are
    Victor's heirs, upon his death, precluded from doing so, as their right
    to do so is expressly recognized under Article 772, and also in Article
    1053. If the heir should die without having accepted or repudiated
    the inheritance, his right shall be transmitted to his heirs.

    Even when the donation is found inofficious and reduced to the


    extent that it impaired Victors legitime, private respondents will not
    receive a corresponding share in the property donated.

    You might also like