Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 90 views

    V! - 198. Calanasan VS Spouses Dolorito

    Uploaded by

    mark anthony mansueto
    Cerila J. Calanasan donated land to her niece Evelyn C. Dolorita in 1982 on the condition that Evelyn redeem the land and allow Cerila to possess it for life. Evelyn redeemed the land but Cerila later tried to revoke the donation, claiming Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude. The court ruled the donation could not be revoked because (1) the acts were committed by Evelyn's husband, not Evelyn, and (2) the acts were against Cerila's sister, not Cerila. The court affirmed the donation could not be dissolved as there was no factual or legal basis for revocation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    V! - 198. Calanasan VS Spouses Dolorito

    Uploaded by

    mark anthony mansueto
    90 views2 pages
    Cerila J. Calanasan donated land to her niece Evelyn C. Dolorita in 1982 on the condition that Evelyn redeem the land and allow Cerila to possess it for life. Evelyn redeemed the land but Cerila later tried to revoke the donation, claiming Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude. The court ruled the donation could not be revoked because (1) the acts were committed by Evelyn's husband, not Evelyn, and (2) the acts were against Cerila's sister, not Cerila. The court affirmed the donation could not be dissolved as there was no factual or legal basis for revocation.

    Original Title

    V! - 198. CALANASAN VS SPOUSES DOLORITO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Cerila J. Calanasan donated land to her niece Evelyn C. Dolorita in 1982 on the condition that Evelyn redeem the land and allow Cerila to possess it for life. Evelyn redeemed the land but Cerila later tried to revoke the donation, claiming Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude. The court ruled the donation could not be revoked because (1) the acts were committed by Evelyn's husband, not Evelyn, and (2) the acts were against Cerila's sister, not Cerila. The court affirmed the donation could not be dissolved as there was no factual or legal basis for revocation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    90 views2 pages

    V! - 198. Calanasan VS Spouses Dolorito

    Uploaded by

    mark anthony mansueto
    Cerila J. Calanasan donated land to her niece Evelyn C. Dolorita in 1982 on the condition that Evelyn redeem the land and allow Cerila to possess it for life. Evelyn redeemed the land but Cerila later tried to revoke the donation, claiming Evelyn committed acts of ingratitude. The court ruled the donation could not be revoked because (1) the acts were committed by Evelyn's husband, not Evelyn, and (2) the acts were against Cerila's sister, not Cerila. The court affirmed the donation could not be dissolved as there was no factual or legal basis for revocation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1

    506948809.docx

    Property – Donation – by MBC


    198. Cerila J. CALANASAN, represented by Teodora J. Calanasan as Attorney-in-Fact,
    Petitioner,vs. Spouses Virgilio DOLORITO and Evelyn C. Dolorito, Respondents.
    G.R. No. 171937, 2013 November 25

    FACTS:
    The petitioner, Cerila J. Calanasan Cerila, took care of her orphan niece, respondent Evelyn C.
    Dolorita, since the latter was a child. In 1982, when Evelyn was already married to respondent
    Virgilio Dolorita, the petitioner donated to Evelyn a parcel of land which had earlier been
    mortgaged for Pl5,000.00. The donation was conditional: Evelyn must redeem the land and the
    petitioner was entitled to possess and enjoy the property as long as she lived. Evelyn signified
    her acceptance of the donation and its terms in the same deed. Soon thereafter, Evelyn
    redeemed the property, had the title of the land transferred to her name, and granted the
    petitioner usufructuary rights over the donated land.

    On August 15, 2002, the petitioner, assisted by her sister Teodora J. Calanasan, complained
    with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that Evelyn had committed acts of ingratitude against her.
    She prayed that her donation in favor of her niece be revoked; in their answer, the respondents
    denied the commission of any act of ingratitude. The petitioner died while the case was
    pending with the RTC. Her sisters, Teodora and Dolores J. Calanasan, substituted for her.

    After the petitioner had rested her case, the respondents filed a demurrer to evidence.
    According to them, the petitioner failed to prove that it was Evelyn who committed acts of
    ingratitude against the petitioner.

    In its September 3, 2004 order, the RTC granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the
    complaint. The petitioner challenged the RTC’s ruling before the CA. In its September 29, 2005
    decision, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling but on a different legal ground. On March 8, 2006, the
    CA rejected the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the petitioner may dissolve the donation.

    HELD:
    NO. "The same rules apply under the New Civil Code as provided in Article 733 thereof which
    provides:

    Article 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on contracts, and
    remuneratory donations by the provisions of the present Title as regards that portion which
    exceeds the value of the burden imposed."

    We agree with the CA that since the donation imposed on the donee the burden of redeeming
    the property for ₱15,000.00, the donation was onerous. As an endowment for a valuable
    2
    506948809.docx

    consideration, it partakes of the nature of an ordinary contract; hence, the rules of contract will
    govern and Article 765 of the New Civil Code finds no application with respect to the onerous
    portion of the donation.

    Insofar as the value of the land exceeds the redemption price paid for by the donee, a
    donation exists, and the legal provisions on donation apply. Nevertheless, despite the
    applicability of the provisions on donation to the gratuitous portion, the petitioner may not
    dissolve the donation. She has no factual and legal basis for its revocation, as aptly
    established by the RTC. First, the ungrateful acts were committed not by the donee; it was her
    husband who committed them. Second, the ungrateful acts were perpetrated not against the
    donor; it was the petitioner's sister who received the alleged ill treatments. These twin
    considerations place the case out of the purview of Article 765 of the New Civil Code.

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari. The
    decision dated September 29, 2005, and the resolution dated March 8, 2006, of the Court of
    Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 84031 are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against Cerila J. Calanasan,
    represented by Teodora J. Calanasan as Attorney-in-Fact.

    You might also like