MARIA USON, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MARIA DEL ROSARIO, CONCEPCION
NEBREDA, CONRADO NEBREDA,
DOMINADOR NEBREDA, AND FAUSTINO
NEBREDA, Jr., defendants-appellants.
JANUARY 29, 1953

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason,

Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Labrador, JJ., concur.

FAUSTINO NEBREDA,
SR.
MARIA USON
MARIA DEL ROSARIO
CONCEPCION
NEBREDA
DOMINADOR NEBREDA
CONRADO NEBREDA
FAUSTINO NEBREDA,
JR.

Decedent
Legal Wife
Common Law Wife
(subsequent partner)
Children of Faustino
with Del Rosario

NATURE OF CASE: Action for recovery of the

ownership and possession of five (5) parcels of
land situated in the Municipality of Labrador, Province of Pangasinan
FACTS
Faustino Nebreda Sr. is legally married to Maria Uson.

21 FEB 1931 Faustino and Uson executed a public instrument agreeing to separate as husband
and wife in consideration of the separation, Uson was given 1 parcel of land with the condition
that the renounce any future inheritance from the former.
Faustino had a common law wife after Uson Maria Del Rosario with whom he has 4 children.
1945 Faustino died leaving 5 parcels of land.
Uson claimed Del Rosario and her children took possession of the land illegally.
Del Rosario contended:
By virtue of the public instrument renouncing her inheritance, Uson is not entitled to the
land
Given that the NCC has already taken effect, her minor illegitimate children should be
accorded successional rights
Uson verbally agreed to assign the questioned lands to the minor children since these
properties were acquired by Faustino when he was with Del Rosario
ISSUES
1. Validity of the public instrument
2. Successional rights of the illegitimate children under the NCC
3. Validity of the assignment/donation of the lands to the minor children
RULING
1. NO the public instrument was not valid.
Future inheritance cannot be subject of a contract
2. NO the provisions under the New Civil Code cannot be given retroactive effect
Effective law at time of decedents death is controlling
The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent
Rights which are declared for the first time shall have retroactive effect even though the
event which gave rise to them may have occurred under the former legislation, but this is so
only when the new rights do not prejudice any vested or acquired right of the same origin
3. NO the assignment/donation was not valid.
Formalities of a donation were not followed (not made in a public instrument)

Donation of real property must be in a public instrument, there must animus donandi,
delivery, and acceptance.

LEONARDO OSORIO, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
TOMASA OSORIO, administratrix of the estate
of Petrona Reyes, and THE YNCHAUSTI
STEAMSHIP CO., defendants-appellants
MARCH 30, 1921

Mapa, C.J., Araullo, Street and Malcolm, JJ., concur.

NATURE OF CASE: Recovery of 610 shares of

stock of "Ynchausti Steamship Co." and the
dividends corresponding to them, which were
included in the inventory of the properties of the
deceased Da. Maria Petrona Reyes, whose estate
is administered by the defendant.

ANTONIO OSORIO
MARIA PETRONA REYES
LEONARDO OSORIO
TOMASA OSORIO

THE YNCHAUSTI
STEAMSHIP CO.
D. FLORENCIO
GONZALES DIEZ
D. JULIO GONZALES
D. JOAQUIN ELIZALDE

Decedent
Widow (+)
Son (donee)
Administratrix of the
estate of Petrona
Reyes
Business co-owner
Notary of the deed
of donation
Secretary/Accountan
t of Ynchausti
Manager of
Ynchausti

FACTS
D. Antonio Osorio had formed with Ynchausti & Co., a joint account association for the exploitation
of the shipping business (owns 1/3 of the P500,000 capital = P166,666.66)
Upon his death, his heirs agreed to authorize administratix Da. Tomasa Osorio to make a project of
partition.
Antonios widow Da. Petrona Reyes, was presented the sum of P94,000 as her part in the "share of
the estate in the shipping business of Ynchausti & Co.
28 FEB 1914 Da. Petrona Reyes executed before notary D. Florencio Gonzales Diez a "document
of gift" in favor of D. Leonardo Osorio giving him 1/2 of her share in the 1/3 part. Leonardo accepted
the donation in the same instrument (Estate of Antonion not yet partitioned document stated that
said half was adjudicated to her as part of her conjugal property).
10 MAY 1915 Project of partition was approved by CFI-Cavite.
3 JULY 1915 Petrona corrected the prior document by executing another maintaining same
donation but stated that she cedes ALL interest/participation in the business (new doc not signed by
Leonardo)
1912 Ynchausti & Co. purchased the steamer Governor Forbes and recognized the heirs of D.
Antonio Osorio as having an interest to the extent of one-third in the ownership and business of
said steamer (After the death of D. Antonio Osorio and before the distribution of the estate).
Share of Da. Petrona Reyes, widow of Osorio, in the vessel Governor Forbes, at the time of the
incorporation of "The Ynchausti Steamship Co." was P61,000, equivalent to 610 shares of stock of
said corporation. Said sum was deposited with the Steamship Co. until the final settlement of the
question that had arisen between the heirs of Da. Petrona Reyes as to the ownership
Leonardo alleged by virtue of the donation by Petrona, he is the owner of the said shares.
Tomasa contended:

 Donation is void (cannot include future property)

Shares are not included in the donation, they belong to the Estate of Petrona
Steam vessel Governor Forbes was purchased after the death of D. Antonio Osorio,
with money borrowed and furnished by the heirs individually and not by the estate
Leonardo recognized that the capital used in the steamer Forbes is distinct from the
money used in the purchase of other vessels in which the deceased Osorio had an
interest.
Trial court ruled in favor of Leonardo.

ISSUES
1. Validity of the donation made by Petrona
2. Inclusion of the P61,000 or 610 shares of stock should the donation be valid

RULING
1. YES the donation was valid.
Future inheritance cannot be subject of a contract
What was donated was not future property
Ownership accorded at time of death of decedent (Antonio died before 1912)
Civil Code does not prohibit absolutely that future inheritance should be the object of
agreement, for there are certain cases (arts. 177, 827, 831, and 1331) in which agreements
may be made as to them
Lack of acceptance in second document not a fatal defect
In the second document, the donor only tried to correct what she believed to be an
error in the first. ratifying and correcting the document of donation. She did not make
a new donation.
2. YES the donation includes the P61.000/610 shares of stock.
Governor Forbes forms part of the shipping business of Ynchausti & Co. in which D. Antonio
Osorio and his estate had an interest.
Ynchausti firm did not bring in any new capital, but obtained money for its purchase by mortgaging
the vessel itself and other vessels of the company;
Heirs of D. Antonio Osorio did not bring in any new capital for the purchase of the vessel, but signed
jointly with Ynchausti & Co. with the others, except Da. Soledad Osorio, the guaranty which the
bank required.
Estate of Osorio had a one-third part of the steamer Forbes represented by the capital which
was distributed among the heirs, there accruing to the widow, by agreement of the
interested parties, the sum of P61,000.