You are on page 1of 4

FZC

Genato v. Lorenzo
23 SCRA 618
DOCTRINE: The delivery by the donor and the acceptance by done must be simultane
ous and the acceptance by a person other than the true done must be authorized b
y a proper power of attorney set forth in a public document
FACTS:
The property under dispute in this case is the 530 shares of stocks of Genato Co
mmercal Corporation, which has P100 par value, of the deceased Simona B. De Gena
to (Director and secretary-treasurer of the said company). The petitioners herei
n, 2 heirs of Simona, are claiming that they own 530 shares of stocks of Genato
Commercal Corporation because of the donation made by Simona to them.
Respondents (other remaining heirs), however, are trying to recover from the pet
itioners, their co-heirs, the said stocks so they can include it in the intestat
e estate which should later be distributed among all the surviving children of t
he decedent.
Four or five days after having Florentino Genato elected and designated as Assit
ant Secretary-Treasurer of the Corporation, 265 shares were issued in favour of
Florentino Genato and another 265 were issued in favour of Francisco G. Genato.
These were not presented as evidence in the course of the trial; they were merel
y mentioned by Florentino Genato in the course of his testimony as a witness.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid donation? -- NO
HELD:
There was no valid donation for lack of proper acceptance. Incontestably, one of
the two donees was not present at the delivery, and there is no showing that Fr
ancisco Genato had authorized his brother, Florentino to accept for both of them
. The delivery by the donor and the acceptance by done must be simultaneous and
the acceptance by a person other than the true done must be authorized by a prop
er power of attorney set forth in a public document. None has been claimed to ex
ist in this case.
LNAC
Cruz v. Court of Appeals
140 SCRA 245
DOCTRINE: In the case of the subsequent adoption of a minor by one who had previ
ously donated some or all of his properties to another, the donor may sue for th
e annulment or reduction of the donation within four years from the date of adop
tion, if the donation impairs the legitime of the adopted, taking into account t
he whole estate of the donor at the time of the adoption of the child. Of course
, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff-donor, who must allege and establish t
he requirements prescribed by law, on the basis of which annulment or reduction
of the donation can be adjudged.
FACTS:
Eduvigis J. Cruz, a childless widow, donated a 235.5 sq.m residential lot in San
Isidro, Taytay Rizal together with the two-door apartment erected thereon to he
r grandnieces private respondents herein, in a deed of donation entitled "Kasula
tan Sa Kaloobpala". The property was accordingly transferred to the names of pri
vate respondents.
Cruz judicially adopted Cresencia Ocreto, a minor, after which she extrajudicial
ly tried to revoke the donation, but the donees resisted, alleging that: (a) the
property in question was co-owned by Eduvigis Cruz and her brother, the late Ma
ximo Cruz, grandfather of the donees, hence the latter own 1/2 of the property b
y inheritance; and (b) Eduvigis Cruz owns another property, an agricultural land
of more than two hectares situated in Barrio Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, hence the
donation did not impair the presumptive legitime of the adopted child.
Petitioner filed a complaint against the donees for revocation of donation in th
e CFI.
Trial court rendered a decision revoking the donation.
On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint.
Thus, prompted herein petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA correctly dismissed the complaint to annul the subject donation.
-- YES
HELD:
In the case of the subsequent adoption of a minor by one who had previously dona
ted some or all of his properties to another, the donor may sue for the annulmen
t or reduction of the donation within four years from the date of adoption, if t
he donation impairs the legitime of the adopted, taking into account the whole e
state of the donor at the time of the adoption of the child. (Civil Code, Articl
es 760, 761 and 763). Of course, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff-donor,
who must allege and establish the requirements prescribed by law, on the basis o
f which annulment or reduction of the donation can be adjudged.
Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the complaint for annulment does not allege t
hat the subject donation impairs the legitime of the adopted child. Indeed it co
ntains no indication at all of the total assets of the donor. Nor is there proof
of impairment of legitime. On the contrary, there is unrebutted evidence that t
he donor has another piece of land (27,342 sq. m.) situated in Dolores, Taytay,
Rizal worth P273,420.00 in 1977, although then subject to litigation.
The legal situation of petitioner-donor, as plaintiff, is made worse by the fact
ual finding of the CA that the grandfather of the donees was the owner pro indiv
iso of one-half of the donated land, the effect of which is to reduce the value
of the donation which can then more easily be taken from the portion of the esta
te within the free disposal of petitioner.
FZC
Genato v. Lorenzo
23 SCRA 618
DOCTRINE: The delivery by the donor and the acceptance by done must be simultane
ous and the acceptance by a person other than the true done must be authorized b
y a proper power of attorney set forth in a public document
FACTS:
The property under dispute in this case is the 530 shares of stocks of Genato Co
mmercal Corporation, which has P100 par value, of the deceased Simona B. De Gena
to (Director and secretary-treasurer of the said company). The petitioners herei
n, 2 heirs of Simona, are claiming that they own 530 shares of stocks of Genato
Commercal Corporation because of the donation made by Simona to them.
Respondents (other remaining heirs), however, are trying to recover from the pet
itioners, their co-heirs, the said stocks so they can include it in the intestat
e estate which should later be distributed among all the surviving children of t
he decedent.
Four or five days after having Florentino Genato elected and designated as Assit
ant Secretary-Treasurer of the Corporation, 265 shares were issued in favour of
Florentino Genato and another 265 were issued in favour of Francisco G. Genato.
These were not presented as evidence in the course of the trial; they were merel
y mentioned by Florentino Genato in the course of his testimony as a witness.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid donation? -- NO
HELD:
There was no valid donation for lack of proper acceptance. Incontestably, one of
the two donees was not present at the delivery, and there is no showing that Fr
ancisco Genato had authorized his brother, Florentino to accept for both of them
. The delivery by the donor and the acceptance by done must be simultaneous and
the acceptance by a person other than the true done must be authorized by a prop
er power of attorney set forth in a public document. None has been claimed to ex
ist in this case.
LNAC
Cruz v. Court of Appeals
140 SCRA 245
DOCTRINE: In the case of the subsequent adoption of a minor by one who had previ
ously donated some or all of his properties to another, the donor may sue for th
e annulment or reduction of the donation within four years from the date of adop
tion, if the donation impairs the legitime of the adopted, taking into account t
he whole estate of the donor at the time of the adoption of the child. Of course
, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff-donor, who must allege and establish t
he requirements prescribed by law, on the basis of which annulment or reduction
of the donation can be adjudged.
FACTS:
Eduvigis J. Cruz, a childless widow, donated a 235.5 sq.m residential lot in San
Isidro, Taytay Rizal together with the two-door apartment erected thereon to he
r grandnieces private respondents herein, in a deed of donation entitled "Kasula
tan Sa Kaloobpala". The property was accordingly transferred to the names of pri
vate respondents.
Cruz judicially adopted Cresencia Ocreto, a minor, after which she extrajudicial
ly tried to revoke the donation, but the donees resisted, alleging that: (a) the
property in question was co-owned by Eduvigis Cruz and her brother, the late Ma
ximo Cruz, grandfather of the donees, hence the latter own 1/2 of the property b
y inheritance; and (b) Eduvigis Cruz owns another property, an agricultural land
of more than two hectares situated in Barrio Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, hence the
donation did not impair the presumptive legitime of the adopted child.
Petitioner filed a complaint against the donees for revocation of donation in th
e CFI.
Trial court rendered a decision revoking the donation.
On appeal, the CA reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint.
Thus, prompted herein petition for review.
ISSUE:
Whether the CA correctly dismissed the complaint to annul the subject donation.
-- YES
HELD:
In the case of the subsequent adoption of a minor by one who had previously dona
ted some or all of his properties to another, the donor may sue for the annulmen
t or reduction of the donation within four years from the date of adoption, if t
he donation impairs the legitime of the adopted, taking into account the whole e
state of the donor at the time of the adoption of the child. (Civil Code, Articl
es 760, 761 and 763). Of course, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff-donor,
who must allege and establish the requirements prescribed by law, on the basis o
f which annulment or reduction of the donation can be adjudged.
Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the complaint for annulment does not allege t
hat the subject donation impairs the legitime of the adopted child. Indeed it co
ntains no indication at all of the total assets of the donor. Nor is there proof
of impairment of legitime. On the contrary, there is unrebutted evidence that t
he donor has another piece of land (27,342 sq. m.) situated in Dolores, Taytay,
Rizal worth P273,420.00 in 1977, although then subject to litigation.
The legal situation of petitioner-donor, as plaintiff, is made worse by the fact
ual finding of the CA that the grandfather of the donees was the owner pro indiv
iso of one-half of the donated land, the effect of which is to reduce the value
of the donation which can then more easily be taken from the portion of the esta
te within the free disposal of petitioner.