Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 162 views

    G.R. No. 112483

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    This case involved two civil cases regarding the annulment of the donation of a parcel of land. The first case was brought by the donor against the donee alleging fraud, which resulted in a compromise judgment. The second case was brought several years later by the heirs of the donor's compulsory heir, alleging the donation was inofficious. The Court held that res judicata did not apply because the causes of action and parties differed between the two cases. It also found that the compulsory heir's heirs could contest the donation as inofficious, and that the 10-year prescriptive period for such claims had not expired.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 112483

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    162 views2 pages
    This case involved two civil cases regarding the annulment of the donation of a parcel of land. The first case was brought by the donor against the donee alleging fraud, which resulted in a compromise judgment. The second case was brought several years later by the heirs of the donor's compulsory heir, alleging the donation was inofficious. The Court held that res judicata did not apply because the causes of action and parties differed between the two cases. It also found that the compulsory heir's heirs could contest the donation as inofficious, and that the 10-year prescriptive period for such claims had not expired.

    Original Description:

    Acceptance and Repudiation digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved two civil cases regarding the annulment of the donation of a parcel of land. The first case was brought by the donor against the donee alleging fraud, which resulted in a compromise judgment. The second case was brought several years later by the heirs of the donor's compulsory heir, alleging the donation was inofficious. The Court held that res judicata did not apply because the causes of action and parties differed between the two cases. It also found that the compulsory heir's heirs could contest the donation as inofficious, and that the 10-year prescriptive period for such claims had not expired.

    Copyright:

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

    G.R. No. 112483

    Uploaded by

    CAJ
    This case involved two civil cases regarding the annulment of the donation of a parcel of land. The first case was brought by the donor against the donee alleging fraud, which resulted in a compromise judgment. The second case was brought several years later by the heirs of the donor's compulsory heir, alleging the donation was inofficious. The Court held that res judicata did not apply because the causes of action and parties differed between the two cases. It also found that the compulsory heir's heirs could contest the donation as inofficious, and that the 10-year prescriptive period for such claims had not expired.

    Copyright:

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

    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.

    You might also like