Article 82 Family Code of the Philippines E.O. No. 209 s. 1987 Student # 7 by : Hilda D. Garcia
Article 82.
DONATIONS BY REASON OF MARRIAGE ARE THOSE WHICH ARE MADE BEFORE ITS CELEBRATION, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME, AND IN FAVOR OF ONE OR BOTH OF THE FUTURE SPOUSE
DONATION PROPTER NUPTIAS
DEFINITION
• a marriage gift or settlement required by law of the husband or his family early during the later Roman Empire and that was required by Justinian to be equal to the wife’s dowry but permitted to be made after and used for expenses of the marriage —formerly called when made before the marriage donatio ante nuptias.
Requisites of donations propter nuptias.
In order that donations propter nuptias may be valid, the following requisites must be present:
1. they must be made before the celebration of the marriage;
2. they must be made in consideration of the marriages;
3. they must be made in favor of one or both of the future spouses.
Under Article 87 of the Family Code, the spouses cannot donate or grant gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, during the existence of the marriage, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give during family celebrations or rejoicing.
Case Digest:
Bonifacia Mateo, et al. v. Gervasio Lagua, et al.
G.R. No. L-26270, October 30, 1969
Ponente: Justice J.B.L. Reyes
Cipriano Lagua and his wife Alejandra Dumlao, in a public instrument, donated the two parcels of land to their son Alejandro Lagua, in consideration of the latter’s marriage to Bonifacia Mateo. The couple took possession of the properties, but the Certificates of Title remained in the donor’s name. Cipriano Lagua later executed a deed of sale of the same two parcels of land in favor of his younger son, Gervasio. A TCT were issued to Gervasio. Bonifacia Mateo and her daughter, Anatalia, sought the annulment of the deed of sale in favor of Gervasio Lagua and for recovery of possession of the properties which was granted by the court. The decision became final, and Bonifacia Mateo, and her daughter, Anatalia Lagua, were installed in possession of the land.
Gervasio Lagua and Cipriano Lagua, filed a complaint for annulment of the donation of the two lots, insofar as one-half portion thereof was concerned claiming that in donating the two lots, said plaintiff not only neglected leaving something for his own support but also prejudiced the legitime of his forced heir, plaintiff Gervasio Lagua. While the cases were pending, plaintiff Cipriano Lagua died. The Court of Appeals held that the donation to Alejandro Lagua of the 2 lots 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 494.15 square meters to be taken from any convenient part of the lots.
ISSUE:
Is the court of appeals ruling on the inofficiousness of the donation proper?
RULING:
No. ART. 908 of the civil code provides that 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 a 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. 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.
