Art. 1068.

Expenses incurred by the parents in giving their children a

professional, vocational or other career shall not be brought to collation unless
the parents so provide, or unless they impair the legitime; but when their
collation is required, the sum which the child would have spent if he had lived in
the house and company of his parents shall be deducted therefrom. (1042a)
COMMENT:
(1) Expenses for a Career
(a) As already stated in the comments under the preceding
Article, this present one deals with education after high school, and may even
include graduate courses in the Philippines and abroad, but not after the course is
finished (as when a father buys an hacienda for his son who has graduated with a
degree in agriculture). (See 7 Manresa 621). The hacienda is a real donation,
chargeable to the legitime. (b) The expenses in Art. 1068 will not be considered as an
advance of the legitime but as an advance of the free portion. (c) However, if the
parents so provide, said expenses will be considered as an advance of the legitime.
(d) In no case should the legitime be impaired.
Expenses for a Career. According to the above article, expenses incurred by
parents in giving their children a professional, vocational or other career are, in
general, not to be collated. This rule, however, is subject to the following exceptions:
first, if the parents so provided; and second, if the expenses impair the legitime of
compulsory heirs. In both cases the sum which the child would have spent if he had
lived in the house and company of his parents shall be deducted from that which
shall be collated. Evidently, the expenses referred to in this article are different from
those referred to in Art. 1067. The expenses incurred by parents in giving their
children a professional or artistic education are not as necessary as those used for
books, tuition and matriculation fees, examination fees, traveling expenses, pensions,
diplomas, school equipment, tools, etc. As a result of the difference between the two
articles, different rules are applied.12 It must, however, be noted that whether the
expenses fall under Art. 1067 or under Art. 1068, all of them are classified as
support.
As in the case of the other properties not subject to collation, expenses for the
professional or vocational studies of a compulsory heir are not to be collated in the
sense that they cannot be imputed against the legitime of such heir. They can be
imputed only against the disposable portion. This rule, however, cannot apply to the
expenses for support, education, medical attendance, apprenticeship or customary
gifts referred to in Art. 1067. Such expenses and gifts are so necessary and yet so
trivial in character that it would be absurd to collate them to the mass of the
hereditary estate and, afterwards, impute them either against the legitime or against
the disposable portion. Hence, the rule that such expenses or gifts shall not be
collated must be applied in its literal sense. Under Art.
1068 and other articles, however, the phrase shall not be brought to collation must
be interpreted to mean that such expenses or donations shall be considered as
advances of the heirs legitime, and, therefore, shall not be imputable against such
legitime but only against the disposable portion. These rules may be illustrated by

the following examples: If the child is sick and the parents are obliged to call a
physician, the expenses in such case shall not be placed in the same category as
donations inter vivos either to a compulsory heir or to a stranger. It would indeed be
absurd to charge such expenses either against the legitime or against the disposable
portion. Or, take the case of a birthday present or any customary gift. It would also
be absurd to impute such gifts later on, even if such imputation is directed against the
disposable portion. In the case of expenses for a professional or vocational career,
the rule is different and rightly so. The amount involved is not so insignificant or
trivial. Hence, generally, such expenses should be imputed or charged against the
disposable free portion. It must also be noted that Art. 1068 refers only to expenses
incurred by the parents in giving their children a professional, vocational or other
career. It does not refer to expenses incurred after the completion of such
professional, vocational or other career. Hence, expenses for a law library, medical
instruments, a drug store, a vessel for a mariner, or a commercial establishment for a
businessman are not within the purview of the article. Such expenses shall be
collated and, therefore, are imputable against the legitime of the recipient or
beneficiary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Art. 1069. Any sums paid by a parent in satisfaction of the debts of his children,
election expenses, fines, and similar expenses shall be brought to collation.
COMMENT:
(1) Other Sums Which Should Be Collated
(a) To enable his son to win an election, a father spent P100, 000. This is
collationable (chargeable to the legitime) because the expenses are considered
donation. This practice of certain parents often work to the disadvantage of the other
children whose legitimes may be thus impaired.
(b) Meaning of debt The debt must be valid and enforceable, otherwise the son
is not benefited in any way.
(2) Problems
(a) A has a legitimate son B. To obtain a loan from a bank, B had to have A act as his
(Bs) guarantor. When B could not pay, A had to pay for him. Is the amount used
collationable?
Manresa answers this in the negative because in such a case, the son would be not a
donee of the fathers generosity, but a debtor obliged to pay his father. Note that in
this case, the father was himself bound to pay because he had consented to be a
guarantor. Upon the other hand, had the father paid of his own accord (and not
because he was a guarantor), the sum paid in satisfaction of this debt would clearly
be collationable.
(b) Because a father acted as guarantor for the son, he paid

P100, 000. The son is therefore a debtor, not a donee of the father. (See [a].). Later,
when the father died, the son repudiated the inheritance. Is he still bound to pay the
P10, 000 to the estate?
ANS.: Yes. (7 Manresa 636).
(c) Because a father pitied his son who had borrowed money he could not pay, the
father paid P100, 000. This amount is ordinarily collationable. (Art. 1069). When the
father died, the son repudiated the inheritance. In this case, does the son have to pay
the estate?
ANS.: No, because he is not a debtor. But of course, the amount used should be
reduced, that is, the estate may recover from the son insofar as the legitimes of the
other compulsory heirs have been impaired.
Payments for Debts of Children. This article enumerates several cases in which
the parents spend for their children with the obligation on the part of the latter to
bring such expenses to collation after the death of the parents in order to equalize the
portion which shall pass to each of the compulsory heirs. Actually, such expenses are
not different from other kinds of donations inter vivos. As a matter of fact, such
expenses may even be more detrimental to the successional rights of the children not
benefited because they sometimes involve large amounts. A certain qualification,
however, must be made with respect to such expenses. The act of the parents in
paying a debt of a child, or in spending for the election of a favourite child to a
public office, or in saving a child from disgrace by paying a fi ne imposed by a court
of law, or any similar act involving similar expenses must be an act of liberality, not
an act resulting in the creation of a relationship or creditor and debtor. Otherwise, the
obligation of the child shall no longer be to collate the amount paid or spent, but to
pay the estate such amount. The child becomes a debtor and if the amount is not paid
before the death of the decedent, he can always be held liable for the payment of the
debt. As a matter of fact, even if he repudiates his inheritance, he shall still be held
liable for the full amount of his debt. On the other hand, if the payment is gratuitous
in character, the obligation of the beneficiary or donee would only be to collate the
amount. And if he chooses to repudiate his inheritance, his position, will be similar
to that of a stranger. The amount expended would then be imputable against the
disposable portion. As a consequence, the provision of Art. 1062 would be
applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art. 1070. Wedding gifts by parents and ascendants consisting of jewelry,

clothing, and outfit, shall not be reduced inofficious except insofar as they may
exceed one-tenth of the sum which is disposable by will.
COMMENT:
(1) Wedding Gifts
The wedding gifts here, although really donations, are not chargeable to the legitime
in view of the sentimental importance of a wedding. Nevertheless, they may be
reduced if they exceed (for each child) one-tenth of the free disposal. This is to
prevent abuse and extravagance.
Example:
A had 2 legitimate children B and C. When the 2 children married, A gave a P10, 000
pin to B, and a P20, 000 trousseau to C, as wedding gifts. A left an estate worth
P190, 000. Should the gifts be reduced?
ANS.: The estate is P190, 000;
Bs gift is P10,000;
Cs gift is P20,000;
Total is P220,000
Hence free portion = P110,000
Therefore:
a) Bs gift should not be reduced because it does not exceed
1/10 of the free portion.
b) Cs gift should be reduced since it exceeds 1/10 of the free portion. The free
portion is P110,000 and 1/10 thereof is P11,000. Therefore, Cs gift should be
reduced by P9,000. This P9,000 should be chargeable against Cs legitime
because the law consider it as an advance thereof. (7
Manresa 639).
NOTE: In the preceding example, how should the remaining P190,000 be divided if
the father died intestate?
ANS.:
P190,000 plus 9,000 P199,000
Therefore, the theoretical intestate share of each is P99,500. B will get this amount.
But C will get only P99,500 minus P9,000 or P90,500.
Thus: B gets P99,500
C gets P90,500
P190,000
(2) Gifts in Cash or Money
Notice that the wedding gifts must, by express provisions, consist of jewelry or
clothing or outfit.
Query: How about CASH or MONEY or REAL PROPERTY?
ANS.: It is submitted that by analogy, cash or money or real property, may be
included within the scope of the Article, for what after all is the difference? The

contrary view, however, is given by Justices J.B.L. Reyes and Ricardo C. Puno. (See
Reyes and Puno, Outline of Phil. Civil Law, Vol. III, p. 207).
Wedding Gifts. Generally, wedding gifts coming from parents and ascendants
consisting of jewelry, clothing, and outfit are not subject to collation. Hence, they
shall not be reduced as inofficious unless they exceed one-tenth (1/10) of the sum
which is disposable by will. The excess, therefore, shall be collated in the sense that
it shall be imputed against the legitime of the beneficiary. The reason behind the
provision is, of course, to prevent any abuse that may result because of vanity or
love, thus prejudicing other compulsory heirs.17
Idem; Article applied. The above article should always be interpreted in the light
of the meaning of collation in this section of the Civil Code. In other words, what is
meant is that the wedding gift shall not be considered as an advance of the legitime
of the recipient so long as it does not exceed one-tenth (1/10) of the disposable free
portion. As such, it will be considered as a donation inter vivos chargeable against
the disposable free portion. However, once it exceeds one-tenth (1/10) of the
disposable free portion, the excess will then be considered as an advance of the
legitime of the recipient. This is illustrated by the following:
Problem When his youngest daughter C got married in 1975, X gave to her as a wedding
gift jewelries valued at P40,000. He died intestate in 1980, survived by his three daughters,
A, B and C. The net value of his estate is P200,000. Divide the estate.
Answer We must first add the value of the gift to the net value of the estate. The result is
P240,000. Using this amount as basis, the legitime of the three children is one-half (1/2), or
P120,000, or P40,000 for each of them, while the disposable free portion is also one-half (1/2),
or P120,000. Now, one-tenth (1/10) of P120,000 is P12,000. The value of the gift (P40,000) is
charged against this amount. There is an excess of P28,000. This excess is considered as an
advance of the legitime of C. Hence, in the partition, she will be entitled to a legitime of only
P12,000. As far as the balance of P108,000 of the disposable free portion is concerned, since
X died intestate, said amount will be divided equally among the three daughters.
Consequently, the estate shall be divided as follows:
A ............... P40,000 + P36,000, or P76,000
B ............... P40,000 + P36,000, or P76,000
C ............... P12,000 + P36,000, or P48,000
P200,000

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art. 1071. The same things donated are not to be brought to collation and
partition, but only their value at the time of the donation, even though their just
value may not then have been assessed. Their subsequent increase or
deterioration and even their total loss or destruction, be it accidental or
culpable, shall be for the benefit or account and risk of the donee.
COMMENT:
(1) Collation of the Value
(a) Note that only the value should be collated. (Guerrero v. De la Cuesta, 59 Phil.
464).
(b) This is the value at the time of the perfection of the donation. Reason: It is this
that really had been given gratuitously.
(c) Reason for par. 2 The owner, being the donee, bears the loss. Hence, even if
the thing given has been lost by a fortuitous event, the donee must still collate its
value.
(2) What Value Controls
In one case, somebody contended that where a certain value is stated in the deed of
donation, that value cannot be questioned when the properties are brought into
collation. This is not correct. The recital in the deed cannot be controlling.
The actual value at the time of the donation is a question of fact which must be
established by proof, the same as any other fact. (Tordilla v. Tordilla, 60 Phil. 162).
The value stated in the deed should of course not be controlling, inasmuch as an
increased valuation of the properties may have been prompted by the vanity of the
donor; just as a decreased valuation may have been due to humility, or a desire to
pay lower taxes. (7 Manresa 643-644).
Their subsequent increase or deterioration and even their total loss or destruction, be
it accidental or culpable, shall be for the benefit or account and risk of the donee.
What Must be Collated. To bring back to the mass of the hereditary estate the
same thing donated by the decedent during his lifetime would be impracticable or
even impossible at times. Hence, the rule is that only the value of the thing donated
shall be brought to collation. This value must be the value of the thing at the time of
the donation, even though its just value may not then have been assessed. The
determination of this value is, of course, difficult especially if many years shall have
elapsed since the time when the donation was effected and the property is movable
property. In the case of real property, the value may be stated in the public
instrument itself which conveys the property. If the value is not stated therein or if is
not agreed upon by the interested parties, recourse may be made to those appearing
in tax assessments or cadastral surveys. In the case of personal property, in the
absence of assessments or agreements between the parties, recourse may be made to
expert appraisal. However, whether the property is real or personal, there is no

question that even if the value has been expressed or agreed upon, the same is not
absolutely binding or obligatory upon the parties.
The rule stated in the second paragraph, on the other hand, is in conformity with the
rule that once the donation is made or perfected, there is a transfer of ownership. The
donee becomes the owner of the thing donated. Risks of loss or deterioration, must,
therefore, fall upon him (res perit domino). The same is true with respect to any
subsequent increase. By the principle of accession, any increase in value would be
for the benefit of the donee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Art. 1072. In the collation of a donation made by both parents, one-half shall be
brought to the inheritance of the father, and the other half, to that of the
mother. That given by one alone shall be brought to collation in his or her
inheritance.
COMMENT:
Donation by Both Parents
A was legally married to B. They had a legitimate child C. Both parents agreed to
give C a house during their lifetime. Later A died. When C participates in the
inheritance of A, how much should be collated by him? Only half the value of the
house. (Art. 1072).
[NOTE: Whereas Art. 1066 refers to donations given to spouses, Art. 1072 refers to
donations given by spouses (the parents spoken of).].
Rule for Donations Made by Both Parents. The rule stated in the above article
is logical. Since, ordinarily, the parents act in concert whenever an advance is given
to a favorite child or to a child in need, the donation generally forms a part of the
conjugal property. Hence, when the value of the thing donated is brought to
collation, one-half of the amount is brought to the inheritance of the father, and the
other half to that of the mother. However, that given by one alone shall be brought to
collation in his or her inheritance only.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art. 1073. The donees share of the estate shall be reduced by an amount equal
to that already received by him; and his co-heirs shall receive an equivalent, as
much as possible, in property of the same nature, class and quality.
COMMENT:
Reduction of Donees Share in the Estate
A has 2 children B and C. B had been given a donation of an old car worth P100,000
during As lifetime. When A died, he left an estate worth P900,000. Since B is
supposed to receive a total of P500,000 he will be given only P400,000. (He has
already received P100,000 by way of donation). C in turn should be given, if
possible, a car in the estate worth P100,000 and cash worth P400,000. If the car
cannot be given, as when the estate had only one car, Art. 1074 should be applied.
[NOTE: Notice that the law ordains not only equality in value but also in kind,
nature, class, and quality, if this can be done. (7 Manresa 651).].
Rules for Equalization of Shares of Heirs. The rule stated in Art. 1073 is
directed or aimed at equalizing the shares of all the heirs. Hence, after the
determination of the legitime and the free portion, or, in case of intestate succession
after determining the shares of each of the legal heirs, the donees legitime or legal
share as the case maybe, shall be reduced by an amount equal to that already
received by him. His co-heirs shall, in turn, receive an equivalent, as much as
possible, in property of the same nature, class and quality. This equivalent is, of
course, taken from the estate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art. 1074. Should the provisions of the preceding article be impracticable, if the
property donated was immovable, the co-heirs shall be entitled to receive its
equivalent in cash or securities, at the rate of quotation; and should there be
neither cash nor marketable securities in the estate, so much of the other
property as may be necessary shall be sold at public auction.
If the property donated was movable, the co-heirs shall only have a right to
select an equivalent of other personal property of the inheritance at its just
price.
COMMENT:
(1) Additional Ways of Equalization
In the process of equalization, more rights are given to the co-heirs who did not
receive donations, if the donations were of REAL PROPERTY.
(2) Rights (if REAL property)
(a) get property of same kind
(b) if none, get cash or securities

(c) if none, sell property to get cash

(3) Rights (if PERSONAL property)

(a) get property of same kind
(b) if none, get equivalent (in value) personal property (no right to demand CASH or
to demand a SALE to get cash)
In connection with Art. 1073
The situation contemplated in the first paragraph of Art. 1074, on the other hand,
refers to a case in which the property donated is an immovable and it is impracticable
to give the co-heirs an equivalent in property of the same nature, class and quality. In
such case, the rule is to give the co-heirs its equivalent in cash or securities at the rate
of quotation. If this is also impracticable or impossible by reason of lack of cash or
marketable securities in the estate the only recourse would be to sell at public auction
as much of the other property as may be necessary. The rule is different if the
property donated was movable. In such case, the co-heirs shall only have a right to
select an equivalent of other personal property of the inheritance at its just price.
Absolute equalization of all the heirs is impossible.

Rules Regarding Fruits and Interest. The rules stated in the above article are in
conformity with some fundamental rules of succession. As a matter of fact, they
necessary follow from such rules. When the property donated to one of the
compulsory heirs, title is vested in such donee once the donation is perfected. It is
but natural that the fruits and interest of the property donated shall also vest in the
donee from that time. However, once the rights to the succession are opened by the
death of the decedent-donor, the obligation to collate the value of the thing or
property donated also arises. All of the heirs called to the succession acquire some
right with respect to what is collated. In other words, what is supposed to be collated,
by legal fiction, becomes a part of the mass of the hereditary estate. The heirs all
become co-owners of such estate from the very moment of the death of the decedent.
Hence, it follows that the fruits and interest from that moment shall pertain to the
hereditary estate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Art. 1076. The co-heirs are bound to reimburse to the donee the necessary
expenses which he has incurred for the preservation of the property donated to
him, though they may not have augmented its value.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Art. 1075. The fruits and interest of the property subject to collation shall not
pertain to the estate except from the day on which the succession is opened.

The donee who collates in kind an immovable, which has been given to him,
must be reimbursed by his co-heirs for the improvements which have increased
the value of the property, and which exist at the time the partition is effected.

For the purpose of ascertaining their amount, the fruits and interest of the
property of the estate of the same kind and quality as that subject to collation
shall be made the standard of assessment.

As to works made on the estate for the mere pleasure of the donee, no
reimbursement is due him for them; he has, however, the right to remove them,
if he can do so without injuring the estate.

COMMENT:
(1) Fruits and Interest of Collatable Properties
D has two legitimate sons A and B. A had formerly been given a donation of land as
an advance of the inheritance. Prior to Ds death, full ownership over the land and its
fruits belong to A, but from the moment D dies, all the fruits thereof up to the
moment distribution is made, belong to the estate (should be added in the
computation of the net hereditary estate). Thus, all will participate in said fruits.

COMMENT:
(1) Rules for Returning in Kind
(a) Although this Article speaks of collation in kind, this is strictly speaking not
collation, but a RETURNING in KIND.
(b) This happens when:
1) the donation is totally reduced because it is completely inofficious.
2) AND the donee either has no money or does not desire to reimburse in money.

(2) Reason for the Law

This is just because it cannot be denied that the land is really part of the inheritance
(an ADVANCE thereof). Remember, too, the provisions of Art. 781.
The inheritance of a person includes not only the property and the transmissible
rights and obligations existing at the time of his death, but also those which have
accrued thereto since the opening of the succession. (Art. 781, Civil Code).

(2) Comment of Justice J.B.L. Reyes

The provisions of Art. 1076 could be applied only to the case of a donation that
becomes revoked as inofficious in its totality under the rules of Art. 912; it is only
then that the very same thing donated must be returned. But that is not collation. Art.
1076 in its present form should be placed with the other articles treating of the
reduction of donations, in the chapter of legitimes. (Lawyers Journal, Dec. 31,
1950, p. 618).

[NOTE: The donee is not deprived of the possession of the land. (Guinguing v.
Abuton and Abuton, 48 Phil. 144).].

[NOTE: There are instances when the property itself cannot be returned, as when it is
now in the possession and ownership of a third person in good faith.].

(3) Comment of the Code Commission

Art. 1076 of the new Civil Code makes mention of necessary, useful, and voluntary
improvements that may have been made on the property subject to collation, a
subject not found in the old Civil Code. The Commission believes that although
these rules may be inferred from the provisions of the present law governing
possession, it is not out of place to have them expressly formulated under the section
on Collation, as is done in Louisiana (Arts. 1266, 1267, 1268, and 1269), Brazil (Art.
1792, par. 2), Lower Canada (Art. 729), France (Arts. 861 and 862), and
Switzerland. (Art. 63). (Comment of the Code Commission).
(Improvements which do not exist at the time of partition are not supposed to be
reimbursed.)
(4) Problem if Value of Donation Increases
D donated to F, a parcel of land worth P1 million. At the time of Ds death, he had
one legitimate son, one surviving spouse, and one acknowledged natural child. At
that time too, the land was already worth P4 million. How much value of land, if
any, must be returned to the estate?
ANS.: Because of the presence here of a legitimate child (legitime 1/2), a
surviving spouse (legitime 1/4), and an acknowledged natural child (legitime
1/4), there is no more disposable portion, and the donation is totally inofficious. BUT
this should not mean that the entire land must now be returned. This is because what
had been donated was only P1 million. Therefore, only 1/4 of the present value of the
land (1/4 of the land itself) must be returned. The remaining 3/4 inures to the benefit
of the donee who had become its owner since the time of the perfection of the
donation. Of course, all the fruits of said 1/4 also belong to the estate, that is, the
fruits accruing since the death of the decedent. (See also Art. 1075).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Art. 1077. Should any question arise among the co-heirs upon the obligation to
bring to collation or as to the things which are subject to collation, the
distribution of the estate shall not be interrupted for this reason, provided
adequate security is given.
COMMENT:
(1) Questions Arising from Collation
(a) Questions on collation do not interrupt distribution as long as adequate
security is given.
(b) Said questions may be threshed out during the administration proceedings.
(Guinguing v. Abuton, 48 Phil. 144).

(c) Just because more than thirty years have elapsed since the perfection of the
donation, it does not necessarily follow that collation is barred by prescription, for
prescription on said matter did not run as long as the donor was still alive. (Ignacio,
et al. v. Ignacio, et al., [C.A.], 5465-R, prom. July 31, 1951).
(d) Only properties received by gratuitous title may be the subject of collation.
(Hernaez v. Hernaez, 1 Phil. 718). Thus, collation may, in proper cases, be done,
whatever be the character or nature of the donation simple, remunerative or
onerous but in the last (remunerative or onerous), only insofar as they exceed the
value of the service or of the charge. (7 Manresa 589; Ignacio v. Ignacio, supra).
(e) Final judgments by the proper court regarding questions on collation are binding
both on the person who raised the issue, and on the heirs concerned. (See Rule 90,
Sec. 2, Rules of Court).