G.R. No. L-26270 October 30, 1969.
Bonifacia Mateo, et al., petitioners, vs. Gervasio Lagua, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Cipriano Lagua was the registered owner of three parcels of land. In 1917, he and his wife donated two of these lots (Lots 998 and 6541) to their son Alejandro Lagua in consideration of Alejandro’s marriage to Bonifacia Mateo. The marriage took place, and the couple possessed the properties, but titles remained in Cipriano’s name. Alejandro died in 1923. In 1941, Cipriano sold the same two lots to his other son, Gervasio Lagua. Bonifacia Mateo and her daughter (Alejandro’s heirs) sued and obtained a judgment in 1957 (Civil Case No. T-339) annulling the sale to Gervasio as null and void, recovering possession, and canceling Gervasio’s titles. This decision became final. Subsequently, Gervasio and his wife sued for reimbursement for improvements (Civil Case No. T-433), and Gervasio and Cipriano sued for annulment of the donation insofar as it prejudiced Gervasio’s legitime (Civil Case No. T-442). The two cases were heard jointly. Cipriano died in 1958. The trial court dismissed both cases: T-433 for lack of cause of action (Gervasio was a possessor in bad faith) and T-442 on the ground of prescription (filed 41 years after the donation). The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of T-433 but reversed the dismissal of T-442. The appellate court held the donation was inofficious, exceeding Alejandro’s legitime and the disposable portion, thus prejudicing Gervasio’s legitime. It ordered the donees (Bonifacia Mateo et al.) to reconvey a 494.75-square-meter portion to Gervasio. Petitioners Bonifacia Mateo et al. assail this ruling.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals acted correctly in ordering the reduction of the donation propter nuptias for being inofficious and ordering the reconveyance of a portion to respondent Gervasio Lagua.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it ordered the reduction and reconveyance. The Court held that donations propter nuptias are subject to reduction for inofficiousness if they infringe the legitime of a forced heir. However, the Court of Appeals based its ruling on unsupported assumptions: that the three lots were the only properties in Cipriano’s estate, that Alejandro and Gervasio were his only heirs, that he left no debts, and it considered only the area, not the value, of the properties. Under Article 908 of the new Civil Code, to determine the legitime, the value of the estate at death must be considered, deducting all debts and charges, and adding the value of donations subject to collation. Only after establishing the net partible estate and the legitimes can it be ascertained if a donation prejudiced them. The evidence before the court was insufficient to rule on inofficiousness. The trial court’s order of dismissal was sustained, without prejudice to the parties litigating the issue of inofficiousness in a proper proceeding with due notice to all interested persons.