Castillo vs.

Castillo
Presenter: Simon James V. Semilla
FACTS:
The subject agricultural land is situated in the barrio of Galamayno, Municipal of San Jose,
Province Batangas used for sowing 30 gantas of seed-rice.
The said land belonged to Simona Madlangbayan, who died 7 yrs. ago.
At present, the subject land is in the exclusive possession of one Simonas children, Urbano
Castillo, while there are other descendants of hers who have the same right:
Pio Castillo(Deceased) Brother Daughter and Grandchildren
Alfonsa(Deceased) Sister Daughter
Estefano Libingting(Deceased) brother of Urbano Castillo Daughter

Descendants of these three family branches claim to be entitled to share with Urbano Castillo,
the ownership of the land in question, as being the only property Simona Madlangbayan had left
at her death.
Hence, they all demanded for a division, although Alfonsas daiughter figures as a defendant
merely by default.
URBANO CASTILLO: wants to prove that his mother, Simona Madlangbayan, had other
property which during her lifetime she disposed of to the benefit of some of the Planitiffs. Thus,
Simona donating the subject property to Urbano Castillo.
LOWER COURT:
This was not proven, and such conclusion must be affirmed or else it will be erroneous,
instrument of donation was also held void.
It gave judgement rendering the claim of division of the property to be valid and that the
parties become joint-owners of the said land.
It was ordered to be divided into four parts:
Macaria Castillo and her nephews and nieces (Juan, Celemente, Pedro Lope, Tomasa and
Maria, all surnamed Cadano)
Juliana Libingting
Maria Quizon
Defendant Urbano Castillo
Urbano entered an exception to this judgement and moved for rehearing; Filed a Bill of
exceptions, which, however, was filed during the progress of the proceedings for the division,
award of shares and liquidation of fruits, which operates were all effected through commissioners
and as a result thereof court ordered:
Each coparcener be delivered the part of the property shown on the sketch made by the
commissioner;
Urbano Castillo to pay to each coparcener, as reimbursement of fruits, Php78.18; and
That the expense of the partition be borne pro rata by all the interested parties.
On appeal to the SC, the form of the division was not questioned. Only the decision on some of
assignment was questioned.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the personality of the Petitioners were questioned as some were minors thus
having no capacity to act? Petitioners have capacity to act.
2) Whether or not the instrument of document of gift/donation was held to be false, and thus should
be null and void? The instrument for donation was void.

3) Whether or not the indemnity for the fruits awarded was erroneous? Indemnity of fruits was
valid.
RATIO:
1.
Despite not first initiating special intestate proceedings during which a judicial administrator is to
be appointed, who alone is vested with the personality to claim the property that belongs to the
succession, minor heirs can still claim for division.
They are expressly authorized by law unless for the reason of there being unpaid debts, however,
no judicial intervention was made which could have been a special defense in this suit.
2.
URBANO: The acceptance in writing of the gift in question, was not necessary, as it was made
for a valuable consideration, and should be the subject to the legal provisions concerning contracts.
If this alleged donation was really made, it was one of those mentioned in Art. 726 of the Civil
Code, as being gift which imposes upon a donee a burden inferior to the value of the gift.
Simona delivered the instrument to Urbano for the expenses of her subsistence and burial,
and if anything should remain from the price of the land, the surplus of the expenses is
granted to him by me.
A gift of this kind is not in fact a gift for valuable consideration, but is Remuneratory or
Compensatory made for the purpose of remunerating or compensating a charge, burden, or condition
imposed upon the donee, inferior to the value of the gift which, therefore, may very properly to be
termed to be conditional.
Art. 733, invoked by Urbano, clearly prescribes that gifts for valuable consideration shall be
governed by the provisions of this title with regard to the part exceeding the value of the charged
imposed.
Trial Court did not only find the instrument false as shown by the evidence but also in accordance
with which Urbano did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in his obligation to his mother, since he did
not defray the expenses for the subsistence and burial of Simona Madlangbayan.
3.
URBANO: No reimbursement of fruits should have been awarded to the Plaintiffs, as no demand
for the same was made in complaint and he was unable to prepare the evidence in the matter.
Plaintiffs were found to be entitled to the right of co-ownership in accordance with Section 191 of
the Code of the Civil Procedure, and so well prepared was Urbano in the second part of the trial, for
presentation of evidence, that he stated himself I DO NOT EVEN WISH TO CROSS-EXAMINE
QUESTION & ANSWER:
Q: If a thing is given on account of the latter's merits or of the services rendered by him to the person
giving of equal value to the thing given, provided they do not constitute a demandable debt, such act is an
onerous contract?
A: FALSE.
General Rule: It is still a donation provided it does not involve a demandable debt.
Exception: It may involve a debt, but such burden should be less than the value given or
donated.

Art. 726. When a person gives to another a thing or right on account of the latter's merits or of the
services rendered by him to the donor, provided they do not constitute a demandable debt, or when the
gift imposes upon the donee a burden which is less than the value of the thing given, there is also a
donation.