Facts:

The case involves Eduvigis J. Cruz as the petitioner and the Court of Appeals along with private respondents Teresita, Lydia, and Cecilia De Leon. The events leading to the case began in 1973 when Eduvigis, a childless widow, executed a deed of donation titled "Kasulatan Sa Kaloobpala," transferring a 235.5 square meter residential lot in San Isidro, Taytay, Rizal, along with a two-door apartment, to her grandnieces, the De Leon sisters. The property was subsequently registered in their names. In 1974, Eduvigis adopted a minor named Cresencia Ocreto. Following this adoption, she attempted to extrajudicially revoke the donation, which the donees contested. They argued that the property was co-owned by Eduvigis and her deceased brother, Maximo Cruz, who was the grandfather of the donees, thus granting them a half-interest in the property by inheritance. They also claimed that Eduvigis owned another agricultural property exceeding two hectares in Barrio Dolores, Taytay...

Facts:

Parties Involved:

• Petitioner: Eduvigis J. Cruz, a childless widow.
• Respondents: Teresita, Lydia, and Cecilia De Leon, grandnieces of Eduvigis Cruz.

Background of the Case:

1. Donation of Property: In 1973, Eduvigis Cruz donated a 235.5 sq.m. residential lot in San Isidro, Taytay, Rizal, along with a two-door apartment erected on it, to her grandnieces (respondents) through a deed entitled "Kasulatan Sa Kaloobpala." The property was transferred to the names of the respondents.

2. Adoption of a Minor: In 1974, Eduvigis Cruz judicially adopted Cresencia Ocreto, a minor.

3. Attempt to Revoke Donation: After the adoption, Eduvigis attempted to revoke the donation extrajudicially, but the donees resisted, arguing:

   • The donated property was co-owned by Eduvigis and her late brother, Maximo Cruz (grandfather of the respondents), meaning the respondents already owned half by inheritance.
   • Eduvigis owned another property, a two-hectare agricultural land in Barrio Dolores, Taytay, Rizal, so the donation did not impair the legitime of the adopted child.

4. Filing of Complaint: In 1975, Eduvigis filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. 21049) for revocation of the donation, citing Article 760, paragraph 3 of the New Civil Code, which allows revocation if the donor subsequently adopts a minor child.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Revocation of Donation under Article 760: A donor who subsequently adopts a minor child may revoke or reduce a donation if it impairs the legitime of the adopted child.
2. Burden of Proof: The donor has the burden to allege and prove that the donation impairs the legitime, taking into account the donor’s entire estate at the time of adoption.
3. Application of Article 761: The donation must be revoked or reduced only insofar as it exceeds the portion that can be freely disposed of by will.
4. Failure to Meet Legal Requirements: Eduvigis failed to allege impairment of legitime or provide proof of such impairment, and the evidence showed that the donated property did not exceed the donor's free portion.