Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

[G.R. No. 105944.

February 9, on which Helen’s house had been


1996.] erected.
SPOUSES ROMULO and SALLY
EDUARTE vs. CA Claiming that his signature to
THIRD DIVISION: FRANCISCO, J p: the deed of donation was a
forgery and that she was
Synopsis: unworthy of his liberality, Pedro
A donation is an act of liberality Calapine brought suit against
whereby a person disposes Helen, the Calauan Church and
gratuitously of a thing or right in the spouses Eduarte to revoke the
favor of another, who accepts it. donation made in favor of Helen,
On the part of the donor, it is an to declare null and void the deeds
exercise of one's generosity. of donation and sale that she had
However, on several occasions, executed in favor of the Calauan
instead of being accorded and the spouses Eduarte.
recognition and appreciation for
this act of beneficence, the donor
ends up as a victim of greed and
ingratitude. This was the fate that
befell Pedro Calapine constraining Issue:
him to cause the revocation of The spouses Eduarte submit
the donation that he made to his that:
niece in 1984. 1. Anent the revocation of the
first deed of donation, Art. 765
Facts: does not apply in this case
Pedro Calapine was the because the acts of ingratitude
registered owner of a parcel of referred to therein pertain to
land located in San Cristobal, San offenses committed by the
Pablo City, with an area of 12,199 donee against the person or
sqm. property of the donor
On April 26, 1984, he executed 2. As the offense imputed to
a deed entitled 'Pagbibigay-Pala Helen Doria falsification of a
(Donacion Inter-Vivos)' ceding ½ public document — is neither a
portion thereof to his niece Helen crime against the person nor
Doria. property of the donor but is a
On July 26, 1984, another deed crime against public interest
identically entitled was under the RPC, the same is not
purportedly executed by Pedro a ground for revocation.
Calapine ceding unto Helen the
whole of the parcel of land. In support of this contention,
On Feb 26, 1986, Helen Eduarte cite Tolentino:
donated a portion of 157 sqm to "Offense against Donor — . . . The
the Calauan Church. crimes against the person of the
On Mar 25, 1988, Helen sold, donor would include not only
transferred and conveyed unto homicide and physical injuries,
the spouses Romulo and Sally but also illegal detention, threats
Eduarte the remaining parcel of and coercion; and those against
land save the portion of 700 sqm honor include offenses against
chastity and those against the
property, include robbery, theft,
usurpation, swindling, arson,
damages, etc.

Held:
This assertion deserves scant
consideration. The full text of the
very same commentary cited by
Eduarte belies their claim that
falsification of the deed of
donation is not an act of
ingratitude, to wit:
"Offense Against Donor. — All
crimes which offend the
donor show ingratitude and
are causes for revocation.
There is no doubt, therefore, that
the donee who commits adultery
with the wife of the donor, gives
cause for revocation by reason of
ingratitude. The crimes against
the person of the donor would
include not only homicide and
physical injuries, but also illegal
detention, threats, and coercion;
those against honor include
offenses against chastity; and
those against the property,
include robbery, theft, usurpation,
swindling, arson, damages, etc.

Obviously, the first sentence


was deleted by Eduarte because
it totally controverts their
contention. As noted, "all crimes
which offend the donor show
ingratitude and are causes for
revocation."

Вам также может понравиться