G.R. No. L-10947; March 18, 1958
JOSE MAYOR, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MACARIO MILLAN, WILFREDO MISA and SEVERO MISA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellant, Jose Mayor, filed a complaint to recover nine-tenths (9/10) of a parcel of land in Zambales. The land was originally owned by his brother, Severino Mayor. On October 25, 1927, Severino donated the entire parcel to Iluminada Miraflor in consideration of their forthcoming marriage, which took place on November 15, 1927. The plaintiff, Jose Mayor, signed as a witness to this donation. Severino and Iluminada had a daughter, Candida Mayor, born on October 23, 1928. Severino died on January 30, 1929, and Candida died on September 25, 1929. Iluminada later sold the land to defendant Severo Misa on April 9, 1932. Severo Misa donated it to Juana Montevirgen in consideration of her marriage to his son, defendant Wilfredo Misa, on May 16, 1933. Wilfredo Misa and Juana Montevirgen then sold the land to defendant Macario Millan on March 20, 1949, who has been in possession since. The parties stipulated that Severino Mayor was not survived by any ascendant, sister, nephew, or niece except his brother, the plaintiff Jose Mayor, and that this land was the only property registered in Severino’s name according to the municipal records. Appellant’s theory was based on Article 1331 of the old Civil Code of 1889, which limited donations between affianced persons to one-tenth of their present property. He argued the donation was valid only as to one-tenth, Severino retained ownership of nine-tenths, which passed to his daughter Candida upon his death, then to her mother Iluminada upon Candida’s death, but subject to a reserva troncal in favor of plaintiff as an uncle (within the third degree). He claimed that upon Iluminada’s death, he became entitled to the nine-tenths and all subsequent alienations were void.

ISSUE

Whether the donation propter nuptias made by Severino Mayor to Iluminada Miraflor was valid only to the extent of one-tenth of the donated parcel of land, thereby rendering the subsequent alienations of the nine-tenths portion void.

RULING

No. The appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s decision was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that Article 1331 of the old Civil Code did not restrict the donor to a tenth of each specific item of property. The limit of one-tenth must be computed on the value of the donor’s entire patrimony at the time of the donation. The stipulated facts did not prove that the value of the donated lot exceeded one-tenth of Severino Mayor’s total property. Two possibilities remained: Severino might have had other lands elsewhere, or he might have possessed personal property worth nine times the value of the disputed land. As the party contesting the donation’s validity, the burden of proof was on the appellant to show that the donor had no other property besides the lot in question. He failed to discharge this burden. Therefore, the basic assumption of his case—that the donation was excessive—was not established, and his cause of action was correctly rejected.