Buhay De Roma vs CA and Rosalinda De Roma, GR L-46903, July 23, 1987

DOCTRINE:
The fact that a dona,on is irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the subject thereof from the
colla,on required under Ar,cle 1061. The inten,on to exempt from colla,on should be
expressed plainly and unequivocally as an excep,on to the general rule announced in Ar,cle
1062. Absent such a clear indica,on of that inten,on, we apply not the excep,on but the rule,
which is categorical enough.

FACTS:
Candelaria de Roma had two legally adopted daughters, Buhay de Roma and Rosalinda de
Roma. She died intestate on April 30, 1971, and administra?on proceedings were ins?tuted in
the Court of First Instance of Laguna by the private respondent as guardian of Rosalinda. Buhay
was appointed administrator and in due ?me filed an inventory of the estate. This was opposed
by Rosalinda on the ground that certain proper?es earlier donated by Candelaria to Buhay, and
the fruits thereof, had not been included.

The proper?es in ques?on consisted of seven parcels of coconut, what the par?es cannot agree
upon is whether these lands are subject to colla?on. The private respondent rigorously argues
that it is, conformably to Ar?cle 1061 of the Civil Code. Buhay, for her part, ci?ng Ar?cle 1062,
claims she has no obliga?on to collate because the decedent prohibited such colla?on and the
dona?on was not officious.

ISSUE:
WON there was an express prohibi?on to collate.

HELD:
None, there is nothing in the deed of dona?on executed by Candelaria that expressly prohibits
the colla?on of the donated proper?es.

The per?nent por?ons of the deed of dona?on are as follows:

IKALAWA. xxx sa kanyang mga kahalili at tagapagmana, sa pamamagitan ng
pagbibigay na di na mababawing muli, ang lahat ng mga lagay ng lupa na sinasabi sa
itaas, xxx ”

As the said court correctly observed, the phrase "sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay na di na
mababawing muli" merely described the dona?on as "irrevocable" and should not be construed
as an express prohibi?on against colla?on. The fact that a dona?on is irrevocable does not
necessarily exempt the subject thereof from the colla?on required under Ar?cle 1061.

Anything less than such express prohibi?on will not suffice under the clear language of Ar?cle
1062. The sugges?on that there was an implied prohibi?on because the proper?es donated
were imputable to the free por?on of the decedent's estate merits liVle considera?on.