Hernaez v. Hernaez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This action was brought in connection with the administration of the intestate estate of Pedro Hernaez. The plaintiff sought the inclusion in the estate, by collation, of the values of the Naga and Panaogao properties owned by the defendant, Rosendo Hernaez. The plaintiff alleged that Rosendo, a poor man after his student life, was supported by his father, subsequently purchased the Naga estate without profitable trade or industry, and that the money for this purchase belonged to his father. It was also alleged that the Panaogao estate was purchased by Rosendo after his father's death. Procedural History: The case was filed before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The plaintiff relied on Article 1035 of the Civil Code, requiring forced heirs to bring into the mass of the succession properties or moneys gratuitously received from the decedent during the latter's lifetime. The plaintiff sought to have the Naga and Panaogao properties collated.
Issue(s)
Whether the Naga and Panaogao estates are subject to collation under Article 1035 of the Civil Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, with costs to the plaintiff. The Court held that the action to require collation cannot be maintained if it is not proven that the property was acquired gratuitously from the intestate.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the properties were acquired gratuitously from the decedent, which is a prerequisite for collation. Applying Article 1035 of the Civil Code, the Court noted that a forced heir is only required to bring into the mass of the succession properties received as a donation or other lucrative title during the lifetime of the 'causante' (decedent). Evidence presented by the defendant, including public instruments dated November 25, 1881, for the Naga estate and November 2, 1898, for the Panaogao estate, showed the defendant purchased these from third parties. Testimonies from other family members confirmed that the defendant acquired these estates through his own labor and industry rather than with his father's money. Furthermore, as the Panaogao estate was purchased after the death of the father, it could not possibly be considered a gratuitous transfer from him during his lifetime. In the absence of proof that the funds used were those of the decedent or that the transfer was gratuitous, the action for collation cannot be maintained.
Main Doctrine
The action to require a forced heir to bring into collation properties or moneys received gratuitously from the decedent during the latter's lifetime cannot be maintained if it is not proven that the property was acquired gratuitously from the intestate.