Abandoned Land

Land devoted to any crop at least one year prior to the notice of expropriation, but was not utilized by
the owner for his benefit for the past five years prior to such notice of expropriation. Sec. 166, Code
of Agrarian Reforms

NOCEDA VS. DIRECTO- Revocation of a Donation Based on Ingratitude

The Act of Usurpation by the donee of the donors land is an act of ingratitude. The law does not
require conviction in order to revoke the donation; only preponderance of evidence is needed in an
action to revoke instituted by the donor.

Note: An action for revocation of a donation based on ingratitude must file the action to revoke his
donation within 1 year from the time he had knowledge of the ingratitude of the donee (not from the
occurrence of the act of ingratitude).

FACTS:
Directo, Noceda, and Arbizo (the daughter, grandson, and widow, respectively of the late Celestino
Arbizo) extra-judicially settled a parcel of land. Directos share was 11,426 square meters, Noceda
got 13,294 square meters, and the remaining 41,810 square meters went to Maria Arbizo. On the
same day, Directo donated 625 sq.m. of her share to her nephew.

However, a few months later, another extra-judicial settlement-partition of the same lot was
executed. 3/5 of the lot was awarded to Arbizo (widow) while Directo and Noceda (daughter and
grandson) got only 1/5 each.

Sometime on the same year when the partitions happened, the nephew (donee) constructed his
house on the land donated to him by Directo. On the other hand, Directo fenced the portion allotted
to her in the extrajudicial settlement, excluding the donated portion, and constructed thereon three
huts.
Around 3 years later, the nephew removed the fence earlier constructed by Directo, occupied the 3
huts, and fenced the entire land of Directo without her consent. The latter demanded Noceda to
vacate her land, but Noceda refused.

Hence, Directo filed a complaint for the recovery of possession and ownership and
rescission/annulment of donation, against Noceda before the lower court. A survey was conducted
and it was found that the area stated in the settlement was smaller than the actual area of the lot.
The TC declared the second extra-judicial settlement-partition and the deed of donation revoked
(because of ingratitude). The court ordered the nephew (done) to vacate and reconvey the property
to Directo. CA affirmed.

The nephew contends that there was no real partition and thus, there is no basis for the charge of
usurpation and ingratitude. He also contends that granting revocation is proper, the 1 year period for
such revocation has already lapsed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in revoking the deed of donation

RULING: NO
The court held that:
We find unmeritorious petitioners argument that since there was no effective and real partition of
the subject lot there exists no basis for the charge of usurpation and hence there is also no basis for
finding ingratitude against him.

It was established that petitioner Noceda occupied not only the portion donated to him by Directo but
he also fenced the whole area of Lot C which belongs to Directo; thus, petitioners act of occupying
the portion pertaining to Directo without the latters knowledge and consent is an act of usurpation
which is an offense against the property of the donor and considered as an act of ingratitude of a
donee against the donor. The law does not require conviction of the donee; it is enough that the
offense be proved in the action for revocation.

Donee alleged that he usurped donors property in the 1st week of September 1985 while the
complaint for revocation was filed on September 16, 1986; thus, more than one (1) year had passed
from the alleged usurpation by petitioner of private respondents share in Lot 1121.
Article 769 expressly states that:

a. the donor must file the action to revoke his donation within one year from the time he had
knowledge of the ingratitude of the done; and that;

b. it must be shown that it was possible for the donor to institute the said action within the same
period.
The concurrence of these two requisites must be shown by the donee in order to bar the present
action, which he failed to do so. He reckoned the one year prescriptive period from the occurrence of
the usurpation and not from the time the latter had the knowledge of the usurpation. He also failed to
prove that at the time Directo acquired knowledge of his usurpation, it was possible for him to
institute an action for revocation of her donation.