GR L 48676; (April, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-48676. April 26, 1949.
LEON ORACION, petitioner, vs. PACITA JUANILLO and FRANCISCO PRINCIPE, respondents.
FACTS
Cecilio Juanillo owned a parcel of land. On December 31, 1923, he donated it to Francisco Principe, who accepted. Cecilio later had a daughter, Pacita Juanillo, born on October 27, 1934. In 1936, a sheriff attached and auctioned the land to satisfy a money judgment against Cecilio obtained by Leon Oracion. Principe filed a third-party claim but later signed a waiver, which the Court of Appeals found was obtained through fraud. After Cecilio’s death in 1938, Pacita intervened, claiming the donation was revoked by her birth and she inherited the land. Principe claimed ownership under the donation. Oracion claimed ownership as the auction purchaser.
ISSUE
1. Whether the donation to Principe was effectively revoked by Pacita’s birth.
2. Whether the sheriff’s sale of the land to Oracion was valid.
3. What are the respective rights of the parties?
RULING
1. Yes, the donation was revoked. Under Article 644 of the Civil Code, a donation is revoked by the subsequent birth of a child to the donor. Pacita’s birth on October 27, 1934, revoked the donation. However, under Article 646, the revocation is not automatic; the donor or heir must file a judicial action to recover the property. Pacita’s intervention in the case served as this required action and was filed within the prescriptive period.
2. No, the sheriff’s sale was invalid. At the time of the attachment and auction in 1936, the land belonged to Principe, the donee, not to the judgment debtor Cecilio Juanillo. Since Principe was not a party to the money judgment, the execution against his property was void.
3. The land is adjudicated to Pacita Juanillo, as the heir of the donor, subject to her reimbursing Principe for improvements (per the Court of Appeals resolution). However, Oracion’s money judgment against Cecilio remains valid as a claim against his estate. Pacita, as heir, must pay the judgment debt of P300 within 60 days from the finality of this decision; otherwise, it constitutes a lien on the property.
The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed with the modification regarding Oracion’s money claim.
AI Generated by Armztrong.