We are done with Chapter 4: Effects of
Donations and the Limitations Thereon
Earlier, we talked about void donations. Void
and therefore may be nullified so the action to
be filed will be for declaration of nullity of void
donations. When you say void, it refers to those
under:
1. 739 (those who are guilty of adultery,
concubinage etc),
2. 740 (incapacity to succeed),
3. 1027 (below),
4. 1031 below),
5. and those that are void for failure to
comply with some formalities under 747
(requirements of notification and
notation) and;
6. 749 (if donation is of an immovable, it
should be in a public document.
Art. 1027. The following are incapable of
succeeding:
(1) The priest who heard the confession of the
testator during his last illness, or the minister of
the gospel who extended spiritual aid to him
during the same period;
(2) The relatives of such priest or minister of
the gospel within the fourth degree, the church,
order, chapter, community, organization, or
institution to which such priest or minister may
belong;
(3) A guardian with respect to testamentary
dispositions given by a ward in his favor before
the final accounts of the guardianship have been
approved, even if the testator should die after
the approval thereof; nevertheless, any
provision made by the ward in favor of the
guardian when the latter is his ascendant,
descendant, brother, sister, or spouse, shall be
valid;
(4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a
will, the spouse, parents, or children, or any one
claiming under such witness, spouse, parents, or
children;
(5) Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health
officer or druggist who took care of the testator
during his last illness;
(6) Individuals, associations and corporations
not permitted by law to inherit.
Art. 1031. A testamentary provision in favor of
a disqualified person, even though made under
the guise of an onerous contract, or made
through an intermediary, shall be void.
In the Lagazo case, the donee here was insisting
that it was onerous because he had to pay
mejoras (property taxes), remember that under
733, onerous donations are governed by
contracts. So if provisions of contracts will
govern then there is no need for acceptance.
The issue here in this case is there was no
acceptance in accordance with 749. Kasi
walang acceptance na ginawa yung donee.
However the Supreme Court said it is a simple
donation and therefore the formalities of 749
have to be complied with.
Art. 749. In order that the donation of an
immovable may be valid, it must be made in a
public document, specifying therein the
property donated and the value of the charges
which the donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed
of donation or in a separate public document,
but it shall not take effect unless it is done
during the lifetime of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate
instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof
in an authentic form, and this step shall be
noted in both instruments.
CHAPTER 4
REVOCATION AND REDUCTION OF
DONATIONS
Art. 760. Every donation inter vivos, made by a
person having no children or descendants,
legitimate or legitimated by subsequent
marriage, or illegitimate, may be revoked or
reduced as provided in the next article, by the
happening of any of these events:
(1) If the donor, after the donation, should have
legitimate or legitimated or illegitimate
children, even though they be posthumous;
(2) If the child of the donor, whom the latter
believed to be dead when he made the donation,
should turn out to be living;
(3) If the donor subsequently adopt a minor
child. (644a)
Art. 761. In the cases referred to in the
preceding article, the donation shall be revoked
or reduced insofar as it exceeds the portion that
may be freely disposed of by will, taking into
account the whole estate of the donor at the
time of the birth, appearance or adoption of a
child.
760 is a kind of inofficious donation. We take
760 and 761 together. The donation under 760
is made inter vivos and we have to determine
that the donor has no children or descendant, in
short, no issue. So, this person has no heir, no
one to support, and he then makes a donation to
a third person. However, after the donation is
made, one of these events happen. The acronym
is BRA.
 Birth
 Reapperance or
 Adoption
Remember BRA
The donor should have children even though
posthumous. Or perhaps the donor had a child
who he thought was dead and the child
reappears or perhaps the donor decides to adopt
a MINOR child. If any of those happen, then
the donor may reduce the donation if it is
inofficious in accordance with 761.
What are inofficious donations?
A: Those that impair or prejudice the legitime.
Remember when the donation was made, there
was no legitime because he had no descendants,
he had no ascendants.
Under 761 the donation shall be revoked in so
far as it exceeds the portion that may be freely
disposed of by will, taking into account the
whole estate of the donor at the time of the
birth, appearance or adoption of a child.
Example: X donated 1 million to his good
friend Y. At the time of donation 1 million ang
worth nung estate, pero after Y died, his son B
was born and at the time of birth nung heir nya,
500k na lang ang worth ng estate ni X. Should
the donation to Y be reduced? The answer is
YES. Inofficious because X’s net estate is 1.5M
minus 1M donation. The legitime of B is 750k
so the donation is inofficious to the amount of
250k and it may be reduced by that much. So if
inofficious naman ang buong amount then there
is revocation.
The procedure is you go to the donee and ask
na isauli nya. Kung isauli, no problem. What if
the donee refuses? Legal remedy is to file an
action for reduction.
What is the prescriptive period for revoking
inofficious donations under760?
A: 4 years under 763, from the time of birth of
the first child or 4 years from the time
information was received of the child believed
dead. The child need not appear. The moment
donor finds out na buhay pala anak niya, the
period will start to run.
Art. 763. The action for revocation or reduction
on the grounds set forth in article 760 shall
prescribe after four years from the birth of the
first child, or from his legitimation, recognition
or adoption, or from the judicial declaration of
filiation, or from the time information was
received regarding the existence of the child
believed dead.
This action cannot be renounced, and is
transmitted, upon the death of the donor, to his
legitimate and illegitimate children and
descendants.
If no action is filed between the 4 year period,
you cannot revoke or reduce na.
Can this action for revocation or reduction be
renounced?
A: No, if the donor dies within the prescriptive
period, the action is transmitted to the heirs and
descendants.
There’s a case where this lady in 1973, she was
a childless widow and so she donated a parcel
of land with a 2-door apartment to her
grandnieces A and B and the title was
transferred to them. In 1974, she adopted a
minor child C so she went to the donees and
wanted to revoke the donation earlier made. A
and B refused so in 1975, which is within the
prescriptive period, she filed an action for
revocation under 760. A and B said, “Yung
dinonate sa amin, small part lang yan ng
kanyang estate, so hindi inofficious.” The issue:
Can the donation be revoked? Supreme Court
said NO. If the donor wants to revoke under
760, she must show in her complaint that the
donation is inofficious or that it impairs the
legitime of her adopted child. The complaint
must clearly allege that the donation made
exceeded the free portion.
Now, the other ground for revocation is
noncompliance of the condition. Sometimes the
condition has value or sometimes it doesn’t,
like “I will donate this car if you get married
within a year.” Wala namang value yan. Ano
ang example ng may value? “I will donate this
care but you have to be my driver.”
Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the
instance of the donor, when the donee fails to
comply with any of the conditions which the
former imposed upon the latter.
In this case, the property donated shall be
returned to the donor, the alienations made by
the donee and the mortgages imposed thereon
by him being void, with the limitations
established, with regard to third persons, by the
Mortgage Law and the Land Registration Laws.
This action shall prescribe after four years from
the noncompliance with the condition, may be
transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may
be exercised against the donee's heirs.
The case of City of Angeles vs Court of
Appeals. It was mandatory under PD 957 na
dapat mag-donate ng portion for public use, so
gumawa ng condition yung developer ng
subdivision na dapat health center or sports
center yung ipagawa. Ano ginawa ng City of
Angeles, nagpagawa ng drug rehab center. So
the city did not comply with the condition.
Issue: Can the subdivision developer revoke the
donation on the ground of non-compliance?
Supreme Court said: In pari delicto sila, may
kasalanan din kasi yung developer. He donated
less than what was mandated by the law. The
developer cannot revoke the donation but the
city was required to demolish the drug rehab
center.
CITY OF ANGELES VS CA, TIMOG
SILANGAN DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 97882; 1996
ISSUE: Whether a subdivision
owner/developer is legally bound under
Presidential Decree No. 1216 to donate to the
city or municipality the “open space” allocated
exclusively for parks, playground and
recreational use.
HELD: PD 1216 (amending PD 957) defines
open space as an area reserved exclusively for
parks, playgrounds, recreational uses, schools,
roads, places of worship, hospitals, health
centers, barangay centers and other similar
facilities and amenities
.
These areas reserved for parks, playgrounds and
recreational use shall be non-alienable public
lands, and non-buildable. No portion of the
parks and playgrounds donated thereafter shall
be converted to any other purpose or
purposes.’“Upon their completion x xx, the
roads, alleys, sidewalks and playgrounds shall
be donated by the owner or developer to the
city or municipality and it shall be mandatory
for the local government to accept; provided,
however, that the parks and playgrounds may
be donated to the Homeowners Association of
the project with the consent of the city or
municipality concerned. x xx.” (amended sec.
31, PD 957)
It is clear from the aforequoted amendment that
it is no longer optional on the part of the
subdivision owner/developer to donate the open
space for parks and playgrounds; rather there is
now a legal obligation to donate the same.
Although there is a proviso that the donation of
the parks and playgrounds may be made to the
homeowners association of the project with the
consent of the city of municipality concerned,
nonetheless, the owner/developer is still
obligated under the law to donate. Such option
does not change the mandatory character of the
provision. The donation has to be made
regardless of which donee is picked by the
owner/developer. The consent requirement
before the same can be donated to the
homeowners’ association emphasizes this point.
We hold that any condition may be imposed in
the donation, so long as the same is not contrary
to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy. The contention of petitioners that
the donation should be unconditional because it
is mandatory has no basis in law. P.D. 1216
does not provide that the donation of the open
space for parks and playgrounds should be
unconditional. To rule that it should be so is
tantamount to unlawfully expanding the
provisions of the decree. In the case at bar, one
of the conditions imposed in the Amended Deed
of Donation is that the donee should build a
sports complex on the donated land. Since P.D.
1216 clearly requires that the 3.5% to 9% of the
gross are allotted for parks and playgrounds is
“non-buildable,” then the obvious question
arises whether or not such condition was validly
imposed and is binding on the donee. It is clear
that the “non-buildable” character applies only
to the 3.5% to 9% area set by law. If there is
any excess land over and above the3.5% to 9%
required by the decree, which is also used or
allocated for parks, playgrounds and
recreational purposes, it is obvious that such
excess area is not covered by the non-
buildability restriction.
Inasmuch as the construction and operation of
the drug rehabilitation center has been
established to be contrary to law, the said center
should be removed or demolished. At this
juncture, we hasten to add that this Court is and
has always been four-square behind the
government’s efforts to eradicate the drug
scourge in this country. But the end never
justifies the means, and however laudable the
purpose of the construction in question, this
Court cannot and will not countenance an
outright and continuing violation of the laws of
the land, especially when committed by public
officials.
So what is the effect of non-compliance by the
donee? What if what was donated was
property?
A: If the property is still with the donee, he
must return the same to donor.
What if it is already sold or alienated?
A:The encumbrance will be considered void
unless a third party is an innocent purchaser for
value.
What if the donee does not want to return, then
the donor can revoke by unilateral act.
Normally, if there is a donation with a
condition, the donor will usually put there an
automatic revocation clause where it says there
that if donee fails to comply, donor can
automatically revoke without need of court
proceedings.
The prescriptive period for filing an action for
revocation if 4 yrs from date of non compliance
of the condition. This particuar provision is a
bit controversial because the SC is treating this
kind of donation as something else.
In de Luna vs Abrigo, a 1990 case by J.
Medialdea. In 1971 april 9, prdudencio de luna
donated parcel of land to luzonian foundation
there was a condition in the deed that the f must
build a chapel and school within 5 yrs from the
donation dapaat apr9, 1976 apat may school
and chapel na donation provided for automatic
reversion clause in case of non fulifillment of
the condition. Lzonian f accepted the donation
in the same doc subj to all the terms and
condtiion statedtherein. Augut 18, 1980 na.
More than 4 yrs from the 5th yr the heirs pf
pruencio filed a complaint to revoke donation
alleging non complaince by luzinonan
foundation. Luzonina said action has
prescribed. If u follow 764 the action has
prescribed. Howveer, sc treated this as an
onerous donation. 764 does not apply daw to
onerous donations bec governed daw by the
rules on cotnracts so u follow the prescriptive
period in contrcts wich I 10 yrs.
Opinion n maam” when u say onerous: I give
you, you give me
iba yung conditionm you are supposed to do
soemthing bec I gave this to you. The ocndition
to buld will not benefit the donor. Well sc said
oneroous daw. So the axn has not prescribed
and this has been affirmed, this particular
decision in many cases
DE LUNA VS ABRIGO
FACTS:
De Luna donated a portion of a 75 sq. m. lot to
the Luzonian University Foundation. The
donation was embodied in a Deed of Donation
Intervivos and was subject to certain terms and
conditions. In case of violation or non-
compliance, the property would automatically
revert to the donor. When the Foundation failed
to comply with the conditions, de Luna
“revived” the said donation by executing a
Revival of Donation Intervivos with the
following terms and conditions:
1) The Donee shall construct on the
land and at its expense a Chapel,
Nursery, and Kindergarten School
to be named after St. Veronica
2) Construction shall start
immediately and must be at least
70% completed three years from
the date of the Deed unless the
Donor grants extensions
3) Automatic reversion in case of
violation
The Foundation accepted and the donation was
registered and annotated in the TCT. By a Deed
of Segregation, the foundation was issued a
TCT for area the lot donated while the
remaining area was retained by the De Luna.
The children and only heirs of the late De Luna
(died after the donation) filed a complaint with
the RTC for the cancellation of the donation on
the ground that the terms were violated. The
Foundation defended itself by saying that it had
partially and substantially complied with the
conditions and that the donor granted it an
indefinite extension of time to complete
construction.
The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground
of prescription (for being filed after 4 years).
The heirs did not file an MR and went straight
to the SC.
ISSUE:
Whether the action prescribes in 4 years (based
on art. 764 NCC-judicial decree of revocation
of the donation) or in 10 years (based on art.
1144 –enforcement of a written contract)
RULING: 10 years
The donation subject of this case is one with an
onerous cause.
Under the old Civil Code, it is a settled rule that
donations with an onerous cause are governed
not by the law on donations but by the rules on
contract. On the matter of prescription of
actions for the revocation of onerous donation,
it was held that the general rules on prescription
apply. The same rules apply under the New
Civil Code as provided in Article 733 thereof
which provides: Donations with an onerous prescription of written instruments.
cause shall be governed by the rules on
contracts, and remuneratory donations by the Fourth issue: WON the donation should be
provisions of the present Title as regards that revoked on the ground of violation by the done?
portion which exceeds the value of the burden A: SC said no because the breaches were
imposed. merely casual breaches not material breaches.
Kung casual lang, meaning may konting
It is true that under Article 764 of the New Civil connection yung ginagawa nila sa condition
Code, actions for the revocation of a donation imposed. Pero pag wala, that is now material
must be brought within four (4) years from the breach that would warrant revocation of the
non-compliance of the conditions of the donation.
donation. However, said article does not apply
to onerous donations in view of the specific
provision of Article 733 providing that onerous
donations are governed by the rules on
contracts. The rules on prescription and not the
rules on donation applies in the case at bar.

Another in the case of Yulo vs Roman Catholic

Bishop. Yulo donated a parcel of land and in the
deed of donation it was stated there that it shall
only be used as a home for the aged and
infirmary regardless of religion, race or creed,
and according to the deed, except with prior
written consent of donor, the donee shall not
use the land except for the purpose for which it
as donated. So that was in 1977. From 1980
ang ginawa ng donee they leased the land to
different entities. 10 yrs later in 1990, the donor
wanted to revoke kasi hindi pa nabui-build
yung home for the aged. The defense of the
donee was that they did not breach naman the
condition because they said that they were
renting out the property in order to build the
home for the aged.

First issue: What kind of donation was made?

A: SC said onerous, therefore not governed by
764 but by 733 under contracts.

Second issue: Did donee violate the terms and

conditions of the donation?
A: Yes there were violations because the donee
leased out the property without prior written
consent of donor.

Third issue: Whether or not the action to revoke

the donation has prescribed?
A: No, because it is 10 years under the law on