Cruz vs. Court of Appeals

The Court held that for a donation to be revoked under Article 760(3) of the Civil Code due to the donor's subsequent adoption of a minor child, the donor must allege and prove that the donation impairs the legitime of the adopted child, considering the donor's entire estate at the time of adoption. The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff-donor.

Petitioner Eduvigis J. Cruz, a childless widow, donated a residential lot and apartment building in Taytay, Rizal, to her grandnieces (private respondents) via a deed of donation. Subsequently, she judicially adopted a minor child, Cresencia Ocreto. She then sought to revoke the donation, claiming her right under Article 760(3) of the Civil Code. The donees resisted, arguing the donated property was partly co-owned by the donor's deceased brother and that the donor possessed other assets, thus the donation did not impair the adopted child's legitime.

• Petitioner Eduvigis J. Cruz, a childless widow, executed a deed of donation ("Kasulatan Sa Kaloobpala") donating a 235.5 sq.m. residential lot with a two-door apartment in Taytay, Rizal, to her grandnieces, private respondents Teresita, Lydia, et al., surnamed De Leon. The property was transferred to the donees' names.
• In 1974, petitioner judicially adopted a minor child, Cresencia Ocreto.
• Petitioner then attempted to extrajudicially revoke the donation. The donees resisted, claiming (a) the donated lot was co-owned by petitioner and her deceased brother, Maximo Cruz (the donees' grandfather), so the donees owned half by inheritance; and (b) petitioner owned another agricultural land, thus the donation did not impair the adopted child's presumptive legitime.
• In 1975, petitioner filed a complaint for revocation of donation in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, invoking Article 760(3) of the Civil Code.
• The Court of Appeals found that petitioner owned another lot in Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, valued at P273,420.00 in 1977 (though subject to litigation). It also found the donated property was partly owned by petitioner's brother, reducing the value of the donation.

• Petitioner argued that the donation should be revoked pursuant to Article 760(3) of the Civil Code, which provides for revocation when a donor who had no children subsequently adopts a minor child.
• Petitioner contended that the trial court correctly revoked the donation, as the donees' acceptance of the deed admitted the donor's sole ownership of the property.

• Respondents countered that the donated property was co-owned by the donor and her deceased brother, Maximo Cruz, so the donees already owned a share by inheritance.
• Respondents argued that the donor owned other substantial assets (the agricultural land in Dolores), so the donation did not impair the legitime of the subsequently adopted child.
• Respondents maintained that the complaint failed to allege that the donation impaired the legitime, a necessary requirement for revocation under Articles 760 and 761.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues: Whether the donation should be revoked under Article 760(3) of the Civil Code despite the donor's failure to allege and prove that it impaired the legitime of the subsequently adopted child.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the complaint. It ruled that under Articles 760, 761, and 763 of the Civil Code, a donation made by a person without children may be revoked or reduced upon the subsequent adoption of a minor only if the donation impairs the legitime of the adopted child, considering the donor's whole estate at the time of adoption. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff-donor to allege and establish this impairment. In this case, the complaint contained no allegation that the donation impaired the legitime, and the evidence showed the donor possessed other valuable assets. Furthermore, the factual finding that the donated property was partly co-owned reduced the donation's value, making impairment less likely.

• Revocation of Donation for Subsequent Adoption (Articles 760, 761, Civil Code) — A donation inter vivos made by a person without children or descendants may be revoked or reduced if the donor subsequently adopts a minor child. However, revocation or reduction is permissible only insofar as the donation exceeds the portion that may be freely disposed of by will, considering the donor's entire estate at the time of the adoption. The donor bears the burden of proving the impairment of the legitime.

• "In the case of the subsequent adoption of a minor by one who had previously donated some or all of his properties to another, the donor may sue for the annulment or reduction of the donation within four years from the date of adoption, if the donation impairs the legitime of the adopted, taking into account the whole estate of the donor at the time of the adoption of the child." — This passage from the decision encapsulates the controlling rule and its conditions.

• N/A (The decision does not cite specific prior case jurisprudence.)

• Article 760, Civil Code — Enumerates the events (including subsequent adoption of a minor child) upon which a donation made by a person without children may be revoked or reduced.
• Article 761, Civil Code — Provides that in the cases under Article 760, the donation shall be revoked or reduced only insofar as it exceeds the freely disposable portion of the donor's estate, calculated at the time of the child's birth, appearance, or adoption.
• Article 763, Civil Code — States that the action for revocation or reduction of a donation on the grounds provided in Article 760 must be brought within four years from the occurrence of the event (e.g., the adoption).