DONATIONS - USURPATION

Noceda vs
CA
Prepared by: Marielle Reynoso
Issues:
W/N THE CA HAS JUDICIAL
W/N petitioner AUTHORITY OVER LOT 1121
AS IT CONTAINS AN AREA IN
Noceda’s act of EXCESS OF THE TAX
DECLARATION?
usurpation
constitutes an act of W/N THE JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION
ingratitude IMPROPERLY ENCROACHES
ON THE RIGHTS AND CLAIMS
sufficient to grant OF THIRD PERSONS WHO
the revocation of the WERE NEVER IMPLEADED

donation? W/N THERE IS STILL CO-

OWNERSHIP ON THE LOT
 Rules/Laws
ART 765 ART 769 REPUBLIC VS.
Revocation of donations The action granted to the IAC, 224 SCRA
due to ingratitude donor by reason of 285
ingratitude cannot be
"Tax receipts and
1st par: If the donee renounced in advance.
declarations of ownership
should commit some This action prescribes
for tax purposes are not
offense against the within one year to be
conclusive evidence of
person, the honor or the counted from the time
ownership of property"
property of the donor, or the donor had
of his wife or children knowledge of the fact
under his parental and it was possible for
authority him to bring the action.
 Analysis
CELESTINO ARBIZO DIED; HIS LANDS
WERE EXTRAJUDICIALLY SETTLED
Parcel of land (66, 530 sqm in Cabangan,
Zambales)
by Aurora Directo (daughter), Rodolfo Noceda
(grandson), and Maria Arbizo (widow).
Directo donated 625 sqm of her share to Noceda,
who is her nephew being the son of her deceased
sister, Carolina.

ANOTHER EXTRAJUDICIAL
SETTLEMENT-PARTITION OF THE
SAME LOT
3/5s of the said land went to Maria Arbizo while
Directo and Noceda got only 1/5 each.
Lot area was 29,845 sqm.
 1981
Maria Arbizo
Noceda constructed his house on the land
donated to him by Directo. Directo fenced the
portion allotted to her in the extrajudicial
settlement, excluding the donated portion, and
constructed three huts.

1985
Noceda removed the fence earlier constructed by
Directo, occupied the three huts and fenced the
Directo entire land of Directo without her consent.
Directo demanded from Noceda to vacate her
land, but the latter refused

Noceda
Relocation Survey conducted by Engr Quejada

PREVIOUSLY NOW
Directo - 11, 426 sqm 127, 298 Directo - 12, 957 sqm
Noceda - 13, 294 sqm sqm Noceda - 12, 957 sqm
Arbizo - 41, 810 sqm Arbizo - 38, 872 sqm
 ARGUMENTS
DIRECTO NOCEDA
REVOCATION BASED ON TAX DECLARATIONS
ART 765 NCC Since it contains only 29,845 sq. meters, the court has no jurisdiction over
Acts of usurpation is an offense againt her the lots not included.
property, which is an act of ingratitude
ENCROACHES ON THE RIGHTS OF THIRD
PERSONS NOT IMPLEADED
Lot 8 was declared in the name of one Cecilia Obispo. There were also houses
constructed part of the lots.

HE DID NOT USURP THE PROPERTY SINCE

THEY WERE STILL CO-OWNERS
REVOCATION IS IMPROPER SINCE THE
RIGHT HAS PRESCRIBED
He usurped the property on the first week of Sept 1985; complaint was filed on
Sept 16, 1986
CONCLUSION
W/N petitioner Noceda’s act of usurpation constitutes an act of ingratitude sufficient to grant the revocation of the
donation? Yes

It was established that Noceda occupied not only the portion donated to him by Aurora Arbizo-Directo
but he also fenced the whole area of Lot C which belongs to Directo, thus the former's act of
occupying the portion pertaining to Directo without the latter's knowledge and consent is an act
of usurpation which is an offense against the property of the donor and considered as an act of
ingratitude of a donee against the donor.

The law does not require conviction of the donee; it is enough that the offense be proved in the action for revocation
CONCLUSION
W/N the CA has judicial authority over Lot 1121 as it contains an area in excess of the tax declaration? YES
Circumstances show that the lower court ordered the re-survey of the lot to determine the actual area of
the lot and that the survey was done with the conformity and in the presence of both parties.
The actual land area based on the survey plan, showed a much bigger area than the area declared in the
tax declaration but such differences are not uncommon as early tax declarations are, more often than
not, based on approximation or estimation rather than on computation.
W/N the judicial determination improperly encroaches on the rights and claims of third persons who were never
impleaded No
First, the survey done by Engr Quejada excluded the portions of land that did not belong to Celestino
Abrizo.
Second, no evidence was presented that third persons owned portions of the subject lots.
W/N there is still co-ownership on the lot No
One way of effecting a partition of the decedent's estate is by the heirs themselves extrajudicially. The heirs of the
late Celestino Arbizo entered into an extrajudicial settlement of the estate on August 17, 1981