G.R. No. 48144 ; July 31, 1943
Pedro Adapon, as administrator of the estate of Rudocinto Adapon, petitioner, vs. Agapita Maralit, et al., respondents.

FACTS

On September 6, 1916, Rudocindo Adapon, a widower about to marry Felisa Maralit, executed a deed of donation propter nuptias (Exhibit A) in her favor. The deed stated he was donating “la tercera parte de mi terreno” located in Putingkahoy, Rosario, Batangas, with a superficial area of “veintisiete cavanes en semilla de palay.” On September 8, 1932, Rudocindo Adapon executed a will (Exhibit B). In clause 4, he stated that in 1905 he bought a 123-hectare land in Puting Kahoy for P300, and that half of the money paid for this and other lands belonged to his son, Pedro Adapon, making Pedro his co-owner entitled to half of said lands. In clause 11, he clarified that the 1916 donation propter nuptias to Felisa Maralit conveyed “la tercera parte de mi participacion en el terreno de 123 hectareas,” which third part had an area of “27 cavanes mas o menos de semilla de palay.” After Rudocindo’s death, Felisa Maralit donated the land she received to her sisters, the respondents, describing it as containing an area of 23 hectares, more or less. The trial court held the donated area was 20 ½ hectares, but the Court of Appeals held it was 40 ½ hectares. The petitioner, Pedro Adapon, contests the appellate court’s decision.

ISSUE

What was the area of land donated by Rudocindo Adapon to Felisa Maralit under the deed of donation propter nuptias (Exhibit A)—one-third of the entire 123-hectare land (40 ½ hectares) or one-third of Rudocindo’s one-half share in the 123-hectare land (20 ½ hectares)?

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the donated area was 20 ½ hectares. The Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the clear and indisputable admissions in Rudocindo Adapon’s will (Exhibit B). The will expressly established that the 123-hectare land in Puting Kahoy was co-owned by Rudocindo and his son Pedro, with Pedro owning one-half. Clause 11 of the will specifically stated that the donation conveyed one-third of Rudocindo’s participation (“mi participacion”) in that 123-hectare land. Therefore, the donation was one-third of one-half of 123 hectares, or 20 ½ hectares, not one-third of the entire 123 hectares (41 hectares). This interpretation was confirmed by the donee, Felisa Maralit, who later donated the same land to the respondents, describing it as about 23 hectares. The respondents are estopped from repudiating this description. The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals, fixing the donated area at 20 ½ hectares, to be taken from the western portion of the land. The Court affirmed the measure of damages for illegal dispossession (4 cavans per hectare per year at P2.45 per cavan) but applied it to the 20 ½-hectare area from October 1937. The Court also found no merit in the petitioner’s claim that the donation was inofficious.