Buhay De Roma v.

CA (July 23, 1987)

Facts: Candeleria De Roma adopted two daughters, Buhay and Rosalinda. She died
intestate. When administration proceedings was ongoing, Buhay was appointed
administratrix and filed an inventory of the estate. Opposed by Rosalinda on the
ground that certain properties donated by their mother to Buhay and fruits thereof
had not been included. The Parcels of Land totaled P10,297.50 and the value is not
disputed. The TC issued an order in favor of Buhay because when Candelaria
donated the properties to Buhay she said in the Deed of Donation sa pamamagitan
ng pagbibigay na di na mababawing muli which the TC interpreted as a prohibition
to collate and besides the legitimes of the two daughters were not impaired. On
appeal, it was reversed as it merely described the donation as irrevocable not an
express prohibition to collate.
Issue: Whether or not these lands are subject to collation.
Held: The pertinent Civil Code provisions are:
Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must
bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received
from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other
gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the
legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition. (1035a)
Art. 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor should
have so expressly provided, or if the donee should repudiate the inheritance, unless
the donation should be reduced as inofficious. (1036)
The SC affirmed the appellate courts decision and that it merely described the
donation as irrevocable. The Fact that a donation is irrevocable does not necessarily
exempt the donated properties from collation as required under the provisions of
the NCC. Given the precise language of the deed of donation the decedent donor
would have included an express prohibition to collate if that had been the donors
intention. Absent such indication of that intention, the rule not the exemption
should be applied.-MJA

J.L.T. AGRO, INC. v. BALANSAG

G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005
Don Julian Teves contracted two marriages, first with Antonia Baena and had
two kids namely Josefa and Emilio. After her death, he married Milagros Teves and they
had four children namely: Maria Teves, Jose Teves, Milagros Teves and Pedro
Teves. Thereafter, the parties to the case entered into a Compromise Agreement.

When Antonia died an action for partition was instituted where the parties
entered into a Compromise Agreement which embodied the partition of all the
properties of Don Julian. On the basis of the compromise agreement, the CFI declared
a tract of land known as Hacienda Medalla Milagrosa as property owned in common by
Don Julian and his two children of the first marriage. The property was to remain
undivided during the lifetime of Don Julian. Josefa and Emilio likewise were given other
properties at Bais, including the electric plant, the movie property, the commercial
areas, and the house where Don Julian was living. The remainder of the properties was
retained by Don Julian.
On 16 November 1972, Don Julian, Emilio and Josefa executed a Deed of
Assignment of Assets with Assumption of Liabilities in favor of J.L.T. Agro, Inc.
(petitioner). Later, Don Julian, Josefa and Emilio also executed an instrument
entitled Supplemental to the Deed of Assignment of Assets with the Assumption of
Liabilities (Supplemental Deed) dated 31 July 1973. This instrument transferred
ownership over Lot No. 63, among other properties, in favor of petitioner. The appellate
court ruled that the supplemental deed, conveying ownership to JLT agro is not valid
because the Compromise Agreement reserved the properties to Don Julians two sets
of heirs their future legitimes. The two sets of heirs acquired full ownership and
possession of the properties respectively adjudicated to them and Don Julian himself
could no longer dispose of the same. The appellate court in holding that the
Supplemental Deed is not valid, added that it contained a prohibited preterition of
Don Julians heirs from the second marriage.
ISSUE: (A.) Was there preterition in the case? (B) Whether or not the future legitime
can be determined, adjudicated and reserved prior to the death of Don Julian
(A) None. Manresa defines preterition as the omission of the heir in the will.
In the case at bar, Don Julian did not execute a will since what he resorted to was a
partition inter vivos of his properties, as evidenced by the court approved Compromise
Agreement. Thus, it is premature if not irrelevant to speak of preterition prior to the
death of Don Julian in the absence of a will depriving a legal heir of his
legitime. Besides, there are other properties which the heirs from the second marriage
could inherit from Don Julian upon his death.

(B) As a general rule, No. Well-entrenched is the rule that all things, even
future ones, which are not outside the commerce of man may be the object of a
contract. The exception is that no contract may be entered into with respect to
future inheritance, and the exception to the exception is partition inter vivos referred to
in Article 1080.
The partition inter vivos of the properties of Don Julian is undoubtedly valid pursuant
to Article 1347. However, considering that it would become legally operative only upon
the death of Don Julian, the right of his heirs from the second marriage to the
properties adjudicated to him under the compromise agreement was but a mere
expectancy. It was a bare hope of succession to the property of their father. Being the
prospect of a future acquisition, the interest by its nature was inchoate. Evidently, at the
time of the execution of the supplemental deed in favor of petitioner, Don
Julian remained the owner of the property since ownership over the subject lot would
only pass to his heirs from the second marriage at the time of his death.

92 SCRA 332

July 30, 1979

Francisca Alsua-Betts, Joseph O. Betts, Jose Madareta, Esteban P. Ramirez, And The
Register Of Deeds For Albay Province, Petitioners
v.
Court Of Appeals, Amparo Alsua Buenviaje, Fernando Buenviaje, Fernando Alsua,
Represented By His Guardian, Clotilde S. Alsua And Pablo Alsua, Respondents

FACTS: A notarized Escritura de Particion Extrajudicial was entered on the properties

of spouses of Don Jesus Alsua, wife Doa Florentina, and all their remaining four (4)
living children, on November 25, 1949. On January 5, 1956, both of the spouses made
their holographic wills with the provisions conforming to the implementation of the
extrajudicial partition. Codicils amending and supplementing the spouses respective
holographic wills on 1956 and eventually admitted to probate. Don Jesus became
executor on the death of Doa Florentina and cancelled his previous holographic will,
appointed daughter Francisca as executrix, and collated the properties to be donated to
his four children. At the death of their father, Francisca filed a petition of probate of the
1959 will and was opposed by brother respondents.

ISSUE: Is the probate of the will acceptable?

HELD: Yes. The 1959 will amended the 1949 settlement and rendered latter as void. "A
will may be revoked by the testator at any time before his death. (Art. 828, Civil Code)
When it will not prejudice any heirs, he is not forced to follow any only one will.