Topic

:
Mandatory Period of Deciding
Title:
De Roma vs. CA
Citation: 152 SCRA 205
Facts:
Candeleria

De

Roma

adopted

two

daughters,

Buhay

and

Rosalinda. She died intestate. When administration proceedings

was ongoing, Buhay was appointed administratrix and filed an
inventory of the estate. Opposed by Rosalinda on the ground that
certain properties donated by their mother to Buhay and fruits
thereof had not been included. The Parcels of Land totaled
P10,297.50 and the value is not disputed.
The TC issued an order in favor of Buhay because when
Candelaria donated the properties to Buhay she said in the Deed
of

Donation

sa

pamamagitan

ng

pagbibigay

na

din

mababawing muli which the TC interpreted as a prohibition to

collate and besides the legitimes of the two daughters were not
impaired.
On appeal, it was reversed as it merely described the donation as
irrevocable not an express prohibition to collate.
Issue:

Whether or not these lands are subject to collation?

Ruling:

The pertinent Civil Code provisions are:

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. (1035a)

Art. 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs
if the donor should have so expressly provided, or if the donee
should repudiate the inheritance, unless the donation should be
reduced as inofficious. (1036)
The SC affirmed the appellate courts decision and that it merely
described the donation as irrevocable. The Fact that a donation is
irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the donated properties
from collation as required under the provisions of the NCC.
Given the precise language of the deed of donation the decedent
donor would have included an express prohibition to collate if that
had been the donors intention. Absent such indication of that
intention, the rule not the exemption should be applied.