ELOY IMPERIAL

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF LEGASPI
CITY, CESAR VILLALON, JR., TERESA VILLALON, ANTONIO
VILLALON, AUGUSTO VILLALON, ROBERTO VILLALON,
RICARDO VILLALON and ESTHER VILLALON
G.R. No. 112483, October 8, 1999
GONZAGA-REYES, J.

Facts:
Leoncio Imperial led Civil Case No. 1177 to annul the donation
(evidenced by a deed of absolute sale in the amount of P1.00) of a
parcel of land to petitioner Eloy Imperial, his acknowledged natural
child. A compromise judgment was approved by the trial court
whereby Leoncio recognized the rights of petitioner over the land
while petitioner agreed to sell a portion of the lot for the benefit of
Leoncio. Leoncio, upon his death, was substituted by his adopted
son, Atty. Victor Imperial, who moved for the execution of the
compromise judgment. Victor died single, and survived by his natural
father, Ricardo Villalon, who became a lessee of a portion of the
disputed land. Five years after Ricardo's death, his 2 children, Cesar
and Teresa, led Civil Case No. 7646 for the annulment of the
donation on the ground of fraud, deceit, and inofficiousness as
Leoncio had no other property at the time of his death. Petitioner
moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata. The
complaint was amended in 1989 to allege that the conveyance
impaired the legitime of Victor, their natural brother and predecessor-
in- interest. The trial court rendered judgment finding the donation
inofficious which impaired Victor's legitime and ruled that the action
has not yet prescribed. It computed Victor's legitime based on the
area donated. The assailed decision was affirmed on appeal by the
Court of Appeals, hence, this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not there was repudiation because of substitution
of an heir.

Ruling:
No. The Court held that res judicata does not apply when there
is no identity of causes of action and identity of parties between the
two actions led. In the case at bar, Civil Case No. 1177 was an action
for annulment led by the donor against the donee for fraud, while
Civil Case No. 7646 was led by private respondents in representation
of a compulsory heir for inofficious character of the donation.
 Repudiation cannot be presumed by mere substitution of an
heir to a case affecting the subject property, as tacit repudiation of
inheritance is not countenanced and that the death of a compulsory
heir does not even preclude his heirs from impugning an inofficious
donation.

In the absence of any specific provision on prescription for an

action for reduction or revocation of donation, Article 1144 of the
Civil Code applies. It provides for a 10-year prescriptive period
commencing upon the death of the donor-decedent — when the net
estate may be ascertained and on the basis of which the legitimes
may be determined. Thus, the failure of a compulsory heir to contest
the donations for more than 10 years constitutes estoppel.

While the parties may limit the scope of the trial by the terms
of the pre-trial, the same may be disregarded as an issue such as
prescription was manifest in the pleadings of the parties as well as
the findings of fact of the lower courts.