Too late the action - A Law Each Day (Keeps Trouble Away)

A donation which impairs the legitime of a compulsory heir is considered inofficious. In such a case, what will happen to the donation? Is there a prescriptive period to question such donation in court? What is the prescriptive period? These are the questions answered in this case of Manuel.

Manuel had two sons, Reynaldo and Silvino. Reynaldo was an acknowledged natural son while Silvino was legally adopted by him. During his lifetime or in 1951, Manuel transferred to Reynaldo his only property, a parcel of land containing an area of 32,837 square meters covered by an Original Certificate of Title No. 200. While the document of transfer was one of "absolute sale" it was in reality a donation because the consideration was only P1 for the whole land.

Two years after the donation or in 1953 Manuel sought its annulment on the ground that he was only deceived by Reynaldo into signing the document. This case ended in a compromise between Reynaldo and Manuel wherein Manuel recognized the validity and right of Reynaldo over the land donated in consideration of which Reynaldo will segregate 1,000 square meters thereof, sell it and give the proceeds to his father.

Pending the execution of the Compromise Agreement, Manuel died and so Silvino, his adopted son was substituted in place of Manuel. Silvino thus moved for the execution of the compromise agreement, which was granted. This was in 1962.

Fifteen years later in 1977, Silvino died single without any child survived only by his natural father Urbano who was then leasing a portion of the land. Four years thereafter, or in 1981 Urbano also died leaving his two children Diego and Vilma, who were actually the natural brother and sister of Silvino.

Sometime in 1986, or five years after the death of their father Urbano, Diego and Vilma filed an action against Reynaldo for the annulment of the donation made by Manuel way back in 1951 on the grounds not only of fraud, deceit but also of inofficiousness as it impaired the legitimate of their deceased natural brother Silvino. They thus asked for the reconveyance and recovery of the property donated.

After trial, the lower court found that the donation was indeed inofficious. It then computed the legitime of Silvino based on the area of the donated property and awarded to Diego and Vilma 10,940 square meters. This was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Were the lower court and the appellate court correct?

No. If the donation is inofficious, collation of the donation must be done so as to give the legal share to the compulsory heir. Before any conclusion as to the legal share due to a compulsory heir may be reached, the following steps must be taken: (1) the net estate of the decedent must be ascertained by deducting all the payable obligations and charges from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his death; (2) the value of all donations subject to collation would be added to it. Thus it is the value of the property at the time it is donated, and not the property itself, which is brought to collation. Consequently even when the donation is found inofficious and reduced to the extent that it impaired Silvino's legitime, Diego and Vilma will not receive a corresponding share in the property donated. What they may receive is: (1) an equivalent, as much as possible, in property of the same nature, class and equality; (2) if such is impracticable the equivalent of the impaired legitime in cash or marketable securities; or (3) in the absence of cash or securities in the estate, so much of such other property as may be necessary to be sold in public auction.

But even if Diego and Vilma has a cause of action for the reduction of the inofficious donation, their action has already prescribed. Their action cannot be considered as a real action over an immovable simply because they denominated it as an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession of property. A claim for legitime does not amount to a claim of title. What is brought to collation is not the donated property but the value of the property at the time it was donated. The rationale for this is that the donation is a real alienation which conveys ownership upon its acceptance, hence, any increase in value or any deterioration or loss thereof is for the account of the heir or donee.

Under Art. 1144 of the Civil Code, actions upon an obligation created by law, like this action for the collation or reduction of the value of the donation because of the impairment of the legitime, must be brought within 10 years from the time the right of action accrues. The 10 year period shall be counted from the time of the death of the donor-decedent as it was only then that the net estate may be ascertained and on which basis, the legitime may be determined.

In this case, it took Diego and Vilma 24 years since the death of Manuel to initiate this case. The action therefore has long prescribed (Imperial vs. Court of Appeals et. al. G.R. No. 112483 Oct. 8, 1999).

Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: [email protected]