Title
Heirs of Favis, Sr. vs. Gonzales
Case
G.R. No. 185922
Decision Date
Jan 15, 2014
Dispute over a Deed of Donation executed by Dr. Favis, aged 92 and ill, transferring properties to grandchildren. Supreme Court nullified the deed, citing lack of mental capacity, and affirmed equal partition among heirs, reversing the Court of Appeals' procedural dismissal.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 185922)

Petitioners

Heirs of Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. by his first marriage (seven children), contending that a 1994 inter vivos donation to their half-brother’s family prejudiced their legitime.

Respondents

Juana Gonzales (deceased), her son Mariano G. Favis, his spouse Larcelita D. Favis, and their children, who claim the donated properties are excluded from Dr. Favis’s estate because the Deed of Donation was valid and inter vivos.

Key Dates

  • 1974: Dr. Favis marries Juana Gonzales, legitimating Mariano G. Favis.
  • October 16, 1994: Execution of Deed of Donation in favor of respondents’ children.
  • July 29, 1995: Dr. Favis dies intestate.
  • November 14, 2005: RTC annuls the donation and recognizes all children, including Juana and Mariano, as compulsory heirs.
  • April 10, 2008: CA dismisses petition for failure to allege compromise efforts under Family Code Article 151.
  • January 7, 2009: CA denies reconsideration.
  • January 15, 2014: Supreme Court issues final decision.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Family Code Article 151 (compromise requirement for intra-family suits); Rules of Court Rule 16(1)(j) (motions to dismiss) and Rule 9 (court-initiated dismissals); Civil Code provisions on donation, legitime, and succession.

Facts

Dr. Favis, afflicted in his nineties with multiple serious illnesses, donated two properties to his grandchildren by Juana Gonzales. His children by the first marriage filed for annulment of the donation on grounds of vitiated consent and prejudice to their legitime. Respondents answered that the inter vivos donation did not form part of the estate.

Procedural History

The RTC limited issues to the donation’s validity and heirship status, found Dr. Favis lacked mental capacity in 1994, annulled the donation, and declared Juana and Mariano compulsory heirs. On appeal, the CA, motu proprio, dismissed the complaint for failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at family compromise, invoking Family Code Article 151 and Rule 16(1)(j). Petitioners sought Supreme Court review.

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals properly dismissed the annulment complaint for failure to aver that earnest efforts toward compromise had been made, and whether the donation was valid.

Rationale

  1. Family Code Article 151’s compromise‐effort requirement is a condition precedent that must be raised by motion to dismiss under Rule 16(1)(j) before filing an answer. Failure to do so and failure to assign this as error waive the objection.
  2. Rule 9 limits motu proprio dismissals to lack of jurisdiction, litis pendentia, res judicata,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.