BONIFACIA MATEO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. GERVASIO LAGUA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals
(In CA-G.R. Nos. 30064-R and 30065-R), raising as only issue the correctness of
the appellate court’s reduction of a donation propter
nuptias, for being inofficious.

The established facts of this case are as follows:

Cipriano Lagua
was the original registered owner of 3 parcels of land situated in Asingan, Pangasinan, referred to
as Lot No. 998, with an area of 11,080 sq. m., more or less, and covered by O.
C. T. No. 362; Lot No. 6541, with an area of 808 sq. m., more or less, covered
by O. C. T. No. 6618; and Lot No. 5106, with an area of 3,303 sq. m., covered
by O. C. T. No. 8137.  Sometime in 1917, Lagua and his wife Alejandra Dumlao, in a public
instrument, donated Lots 998 and 6541 to their son Alejandro Lagua, in consideration of the latter’s marriage to Bonifacia Mateo.  The
marriage was celebrated on 15 May 1917,
and thereafter, the couple took possession of the properties, but the
Certificate of Title remained in the donor’s name.

In 1923, the son, Alejandro, died.  His widow, Bonifacia
Mateo, and her infant daughter lived with her father-in-law, Cipriano Lagua, who then
undertook the farming of the donated lots. 
It seems that at the start, Cipriano Lagua was giving to Bonifacia the
owner’s share of the harvest from the land. 
In 1926, however, Cipriano refused to deliver
the said share, thus prompting Bonifacia to resort to
the Justice of the Peace Court of Asingan, Pangasinan, from where she obtained a judgment awarding to
her possession of the two lots, plus damages.

On 31 July 1941,
Cipriano Lagua executed a
deed of sale of the same two parcels of land in favor of his younger son, Gervasio.  This sale
not­withstanding, Bonifacia Mateo was continuously
given the owner’s share of the harvest until 1956, when it was altogether
stopped, It was only then that Bonifacia Mateo
learned of the sale of the lots to her brother-in-law, who had the sale in his
favor registered only on 22 September
1955.  As a consequence, TCT
Nos. 19152 and 19153 of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan
were issued to Gervasio.

Bonifacia Mateo and her daughter, Anatalia, assisted, by her husband, Luis Alcantara, went to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan (Civil Case No. T-339), seeking annulment of the
deed of sale in favor of Ger­vasio Lagua and for recovery of possession of the
properties.  On 3 Jan­uary 1957, judgment was rendered in the case
—

“- – – – – declaring the sale executed by Cipriano
Lagua in favor of the other defendants, Gervasio Lagua and Sotera Casimero, as null and void
and non-existent; ordering the Register of Deeds for the province of Pangasinan, to cancel Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
19152 and 19153; condemning the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the
plaintiffs the sum of P200.00; ordering the defendants Gervasio
Lagua and Sotera Lagua to vacate and deliver the possession over the two
parcels of land to the plaintiffs, and to pay the costs of this suit.”

The decision became final, and Bonifacia Mateo and her daughter, Anatalia
Lagua, were installed in possession of the land.

On 18 August 1957, the spouses Gervasio
Lagua and Sotera Casimero commenced in the Justice of the Peace Court of Asingan, Pangasinan, an action
against Bonifacia Mateo and her daughter for
reimbursement of the improvements allegedly made by them on Lots 998 and 6541,
plus damages.  Dismissed by the Justice
of the Peace Court for being barred by the judgment in Civil Case No. T-339,
therein plaintiffs appealed to the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan where the case was docketed as Civil Case No. T-433.  At about the same time, another case was
filed, this time by Gervasio Lagua
and Cipriano Lagua, for
annulment of the donation of the two lots, insofar as one-half portion thereof
was concerned (Civil Case No. T-442).  It
was their claim that in donating the two lots, which allegedly were all that
plaintiff Cipriano Lagua
owned, said plaintiff not only neglected leaving something for his own support
but also prejudiced the legitime of his forced heir,
plaintiff Gervasio Lagua.

Being intimately related, the two cases were heard jointly.  On Nov­ember
12, 1958, while the cases were pending final resolution, plaintiff Cipriano Lagua died.  On 23
December 1960, the court rendered a single decision dismissing
Civil Case No. T-433 for lack of cause of action, plaintiffs spouses Gervasio Lagua and Sotera Casimero having been
declared possessors in bad faith in Civil Case No. T-339 and, therefore, not
entitled to any reimbursement of the expenses and improvements put up by them
on the land.  The other suit, Civil Case
No. T-442, was, likewise dismissed on the ground of prescription, the action to
annul the donation having been brought only in 1958, or after the lapse of 41
years.  Defendants’ counterclaims were
similarly dismissed although they were awarded attorneys’ fees in the sum of
P150.00.

Plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA-GR
Nos. 30064 and 30065-R).  Said tribunal,
on 18 March 1966, affirmed
the ruling of the trial court in Civil Case No. T-433 denying plaintiffs’ claim
for reimbursement of the improvements said to have been made on the land.  In regard to the annulment case (C.F.I. No.
T-442), however, the Court of Appeals held that the donation to Alejandro Lagua of the 2 lots with a combined area of 11,888 square
meters exceeded by 494.75 square meters his (Alejandro’s) legitime
and the disposable portion that Cipriano Lagua could have freely given by will, and, to the same
extent, prejudiced the legitime of Cipriano’s other heir, Gervasio Lagua.  The donation
was thus declared inofficious, and defendants-appellees were ordered to reconvey
to plaintiff Gervasio Lagua
a portion of 494.75 square meters to be taken from any convenient part of the
lots.  The award of attorneys’ fees to
the defendants was also eliminated for lack of proper basis.

Bonifacia Mateo, et al., then resorted
to this Court, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it
ordered them to reconvey a portion of the lots to
herein respondent Gervasio Lagua.  It is petitioners’ contention that (1) the
validity of the donation propter nuptias having been finally determined in Civil Case
No. T-339, any question in derogation of said validity is already barred; (2)
that the action to annul the donation, filed in 1958, or 41 years after its
execution, is abated by prescription; (3) that a donation propter
nuptias is re­vocable only for any of the grounds
enumerated in Article 132 of the new Civil Code, and inofficiousness is not one
of them; and (4) that in determining the legitime of
the Lagua brothers in the hereditary estate of Cipriano Lagua, the Court of
Appeals should have applied the provisions of the Civil Code of 1889, and not
Article 888 of the new Civil Code.

Petitioners’ first two assigned errors, it may be stated, are
non-contentious issues that have no bearing in the actual controversy in this
case.  All of them refer to the validity
of the donation – a matter which was definitively settled in Civil Case No.
T-399 and which, precisely, was declared by the Court of Appeals to be
“beyond the realm of judicial inquiry”.  In reality, the only question this case
presents is whether or not the Court of Appeals acted correctly in ordering the
reduction of the donation for being inofficious, and
in ordering herein petitioners to reconvey to
respondent Gervasio Lagua
an uniden­tified 494.75-square meter portion of the donated lots.

We are in accord with the Court of Appeals that Civil Case No.
442 is not one exclusively for annulment or revocation of the entire donation,
but of merely that portion thereof allegedly trenching on the legitime of respondent Gervasio Lagua;^[1]
that the cause of action to enforce Gervasio’s legitime, having accrued only upon the death of his father
on 12 November 1958, the dispute has to be governed by the pertinent provi­sions
of the new Civil Code; and that a donation propter
nuptias properly may be reduced for being inofficious. 
Contrary to the views of appellants (petitioners), donations propter nuptias  (by reason of marriage) are with­out onerous
consideration, the marriage being merely the occasion or motive
for the donation, not its causa.  Being liberalities, they remain subject to
reduction for inofficiousness upon the donor’s death, if they should infringe
the legitime of a forced heir.^[2]

It is to be noted, however, that in rendering the judgment under
review, the Court of Appeals acted on several unsupported assumptions:  that the three (3) lots mentioned in the
decision (Nos. 998, 5106 and 6541) were the only properties composing
the net hereditary estate of the deceased Cipriano Lagua; that Alejandro Lagua and Gervasio Lagua were his only
legal heirs; that the deceased left no unpaid debts, charges, taxes, etc., for
which the estate would be answerable.^[3]
In the computation of the heirs’ legitime, the Court
of Appeals also considered only the area, not the value, of the properties.

The infirmity in the above course of action lies in the fact that
in its Article 908 the new Civil Code specifically provides as follows:

“ART. 908.  To determine
the legitime, the value of the property left at the
death of the tes­tator shall be considered, deducting all debts, and charges,
which shall not include those imposed in the will.

“To the net value of the hereditary estate, shall be added the
value of all donations by the testator that are subject to collation, at the
time he made them.”

In other words, before any conclusion about the legal share due
to a compulsory heir may be reached, it is necessary that certain steps be
taken first.  The net estate of the
decedent must be ascertained, by de­ducting all payable obligations and charges
from the value of the property owned by the deceased at the time of his
death; then, all donations subject to collation would be added to it.  With the partible
estate thus determined, the legitimes of the compulsory
heir or heirs can be estab­lished; and only thereafter can it be ascertained
whether or not a dona­tion had prejudiced the legitimes.  Certainly, in order that a donation may be
reduced for being inofficious, there must be proof
that the value of the donated property exceeds that of the disposable free
portion plus the donee’s share as legitime
in the properties of the donor.^[4]
In the present case, it can hardly be said that, with the evidence then before
the court, it was in any position to rule on the inofficiousness of the
donation involved here, and to order its reduction and reconveyance
of the deducted portion to the respondents.

FOR THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, the decision of the
Court of Appeals, insofar as Civil Case No. 442 of the court a quo
is concerned, is hereby set aside and the trial court’s order of dismissal
sustained, with­out prejudice to
the parties’ litigating the issue of inofficiousness in a proper proceeding,
giving due notice to all persons interested in the estate of the late Cip­riano Lagua.  Without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Zaldivar,
Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, and Barredo,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
See Complaint, Civil Case No. 442, page 50, Record on Appeal:  “That plaintiff Gervasio
Lagua is entitled for a protection of his rights over
the one-half of each of said two parcels of land which (are) supposed to be
reserved for the legitimes of forced heirs, and which
plaintiff” (Cipriano) “could not donate- –
– -.”

^[2]
21 Scaevola, Cod. Civ., 2d
Ed., pages 328-329; 348-349; Vol. I, Reyes and
Puno, An Outline of Philippine Civil Law, 1965
ed., page 166.

^[3]
There is no evidence on these facts.

^[4]
Ramos vs. Cariño, L-17429 (October 31, 1962),
6 SCRA 482, 486.