Heirs of Sevilla vs. Sevilla

in consideration of Leopoldo’s and his family’s love,

Art. 737  – Heirs of Sevilla vs. Sevilla

affection and services rendered in the past. Facts: Issue:  W/N the Donation Inter Vivos is valid?

Filomena died intestate leaving her 8 children: William, Peter, Felipe, Leopoldo, Rosa, Maria,

Ruling:

Luzvilla, and Jimmy. William, Jimmy, and Maria are now survived by their respective spouses and chidren. Filomena left 4 parcels of land. One of these is the Parcel 1or known as Lot No. 653 which is the subject of the controversy.

Yes, it is valid. Article 737 of the NCC provides that the donor’s capacity shall be determined as  of the time

of the making of the donation. Like any other of

contract, an agreement of the parties is essential

Filomena which she co-owned with her sisters,

and the attendance of vice consent renders contract

Honorata and Felisa who were both single and

voidable.

Lot No. No. 653 is the the paraphernal property property

without issue. When Honorata died in 1982, her 1/3 undivided share in Lot No. 635 was transmitted to her heirs, Felisa and the heirs of Filomena, who thereby acquired the property in the proportion of ½ share each.

he who denies, must prove. In the instant case, the self- serving testimony of the other heirs are vague as to what acts of

During the Lifetime of Felisa and Honorata, they lived in the house of Filomena, together with their nephew, Leopoldo and his family. Leopoldo attended to the needs of his mother and his two aunts.

executed a last will and testament devising her ½ share to Leopoldo and his wife. In 1986, she another

document

denominated

Leopoldo constituted fraud and undue influence and on how these acts vitiated Felisa’s consent. Fraud

and undue influence must be established by full, clear, and convincing evidence otherwise the latter’s

consent must be presumed.

In 1988, Felisa died. Previous thereto, in 1985, she

executed

It is well-settled rule that he who asserts, not

as

“Donation Inter Vivos” ceding to Leopoldo her ½

share in Lot No. 653, which was accepted by Leopoldo in the same document.

Moreover, the other heirs failed to show proof why Felisa should be held incapable of exercising sufficient judgment in ceding her share to Leopoldo. As testified by the notary public who notarized the Deed of Donation, Felisa confirmed to him her intention to donate her share in Lot No. 635 to Leopoldo. He stressed that though Felisa was old,

In 1990, Felipe, Rosa, and the heirs of William

she was of sound mind and could talk sensibly .

,Jimmy and Maria filed an annulment of the Deed of

Significantly, there is nothing in the record that

Donation alleging that the same is tainted with fraud

discloses even an attempt by the other heirs to rebut

because Felisa,who was then 81 years of age, was

said declaration of the notary public.

seriously ill and of unsound mind at time of the execution thereof. Leopoldo, on the other hand, denied that there was fraud and undue influence in the execution of the questioned documents. He alleged that Felisa was of sound mind at the time of the execution of the assailed deeds and that she freely and voluntarily ceded her undivided share in Lot No. 653