Scribd
Upload
98 views2 pages

De Roma vs. Court of Appeals (Digest)

This case involves a dispute between two adopted daughters, Buhay and Rosalinda, over the estate of their deceased mother, Candeleria De Roma. Candeleria had donated several parcels of land totaling P10,297.50 to Buhay before her death. When the estate was being administered, Buhay did not include these lands and their fruits in the inventory. Rosalinda objected, arguing they were subject to collation. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the lands were subject to collation under the Civil Code, as the deed of donation merely described the gift as irrevocable, not expressly prohibiting collation as required to exempt donated property

Uploaded by

Alegria Iris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
98 views2 pages

De Roma vs. Court of Appeals (Digest)

This case involves a dispute between two adopted daughters, Buhay and Rosalinda, over the estate of their deceased mother, Candeleria De Roma. Candeleria had donated several parcels of land totaling P10,297.50 to Buhay before her death. When the estate was being administered, Buhay did not include these lands and their fruits in the inventory. Rosalinda objected, arguing they were subject to collation. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the lands were subject to collation under the Civil Code, as the deed of donation merely described the gift as irrevocable, not expressly prohibiting collation as required to exempt donated property

Uploaded by

Alegria Iris
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

DE ROMA VS.

COURT OF APPEALS (DIGEST)

Buhay De Roma v. CA (July 23, 1987)

Facts: Candeleria De Roma adopted two daughters, Buhay and


Rosalinda. She died intestate. When administration proceedings
was ongoing, Buhay was appointed administratrix and filed an
inventory of the estate. Opposed by Rosalinda on the ground that
certain properties donated by their mother to Buhay and fruits
thereof had not been included. The Parcels of Land totaled
P10,297.50 and the value is not disputed. The TC issued an order
in favor of Buhay because when Candelaria donated the
properties to Buhay she said in the Deed of Donation “sa
pamamagitan ng pagbibigay na din a mababawing muli” which
the TC interpreted as a prohibition to collate and besides the
legitimes of the two daughters were not impaired. On appeal, it
was reversed as it merely described the donation as irrevocable
not an express prohibition to collate.

Issue: Whether or not these lands are subject to collation.

Held: The pertinent Civil Code provisions are:

Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other


compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any
property or right which he may have received from the decedent,
during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other
gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the
determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of
the partition. (1035a)

Art. 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs
if the donor should have so expressly provided, or if the donee
should repudiate the inheritance, unless the donation should be
reduced as inofficious. (1036)
The SC affirmed the appellate court’s decision and that it merely
described the donation as irrevocable. The Fact that a donation is
irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the donated properties
from collation as required under the provisions of the NCC. Given
the precise language of the deed of donation the decedent donor
would have included an express prohibition to collate if that had
been the donor’s intention. Absent such indication of that
intention, the rule not the exemption should be applied.-MJA

You might also like