-..

,-
The prohibition in Art 739 is not applicable to Candelaria since she was not guilty of concubinage, there being
no proof that she was aware of the 1st matriage. As to the 2nd point, the benefits accruing fi-om the membership in
SSS do not fonn part of 100 properties of the conjugal partnership of the covered member since they are disbwsed
from a public special fuM created by Congress. Basically, the renefits ffom SSS cannot re considered as property
earned by the member during his lifetime since his contribution constitutes only a portion thereof.
In short, if there is a named beneficiary and too designation is not invalid, it is oot 100 ooirs of 100 employee
who are entitk:d to receive the renefits (unless they are designated as such). It is only when 1OOre is 00 designated
beneficiary that the laws of succession are applicable.
6.
Revocation of donations propter nuptias
a. Revocation by donor
Mateo v. LalZua (l969)
Facts: The parents of Alejandro donated two lots to him in considerdtion of his marriage to petitioner Bonifacia.
The marriage was celebrated and thereafter the couple took possession of the lots, but the certificates of title
remained in the donors' Dame. When AlejaJxiro died, his father Cipriano tmdertook to farm on the donated k>ts. At
first, Cipriano gave to Bonifacia the share from the kJts' baIvests, W11ilI956 when he refused to deliver to petitioner
the said share.
Bonifacia learned that as early as 1941, Cipriaoo executed a deed of sale of the said k>ts in favor of his yoW1ger
son, herein respondent Gervacio. Petitioner learmd of this only in 1956 when Cipriano stopped giving to petitioner
her share to the harvest. A Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) was issued under respondent's name.
The CFI declared the TCT issued to respondent void, and for respoooent to vacate am deliver the lots to
petitioner. Meanwhile, Gervacio and Cipriano filed a case for the annulment of 1l\C donation of the two kJts. It was
dismissed for prescription, ha"ing been filed after the lapse of 41 years.. When appealed, the CA held that the
donation to Alejandro of tOO two Jots exceeded his legitime and the disposable portion that Cipriano could have
freely given by will, and to tOO same extent prejudiced tOO legitime of Gervacio. The donation was thus declared
inofficious and herein petitioners were ordered to reconvey to Gervacio a portion of 494.75 sq. m. from any
convenient part of the lots.
Issue: WON the Court of Appeals correctly reduced the donation propter nuptias for being inofficious?
Held/Ratio: NO. The decision ofCA was based on unsupported assumptions.
A donation propter nuptias pro~ may be reduced for being inoffICious, since it is given without onerous
consideraction with the marriage being merely the occasion or motive for the donation and not the cause. Being
liberalities, they remain subject to reduction for inofficiousness upon the donor's death if they should infringe the
legitime of a forced (compulsory) heir.
Before the legitime may be reached, the net estate of the decedent must be ascertained, by deducting all payable
obligations and charges ftom the val~ of the property owned by tm deceased at the time of his death; tlXln, all
donations subject to collation would be added to it. With tm partible estate thus determined, tm legitimes of the
compulsory heirs can re established, aM only tmreafter can it be ascertaiood whether or not a donation had
prejudiced tk legitimes. In tk present case, it can hardly be seen that, with tl:: evidence then refore the court, it
was in any position to rule on the inofficiousness of the donation involved rere, and to order its reduction and
reconveyance of the deducted portion to the respondents.
b. By operation of law
E. Absolute community of property
1. When applicable
2. Commencement
3. Waiver during marriage
4-