[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
89 views1 page

Noceda v. CA

1. Aurora Directo donated land to her nephew Rodolfo Noceda. Noceda later removed a fence separating the donated land from Directo's land and fenced the entire lot without her consent. 2. The court ruled that Noceda's act of occupying Directo's land without permission was ingratitude allowing revocation of the donation. 3. The court also ruled that the action had not prescribed because Noceda failed to prove that Directo knew of the usurpation more than one year before filing and that she was able to bring an action at that time.

Uploaded by

Steven Ave
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
89 views1 page

Noceda v. CA

1. Aurora Directo donated land to her nephew Rodolfo Noceda. Noceda later removed a fence separating the donated land from Directo's land and fenced the entire lot without her consent. 2. The court ruled that Noceda's act of occupying Directo's land without permission was ingratitude allowing revocation of the donation. 3. The court also ruled that the action had not prescribed because Noceda failed to prove that Directo knew of the usurpation more than one year before filing and that she was able to bring an action at that time.

Uploaded by

Steven Ave
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

NOCEDA V.

COURT OF APPEALS

BRIEF FACTS:
Aurora Directo (donor) donated a parcel of land to Rodolfo Noceda (donee), who is her nephew
being the son of her deceased sister. Sometime in 1981, donee constructed a house on the land
donated to him. Donor fenced the portion pertaining to her, excluding the donated lot. However,
in 1985, donee removed the fence earlier constructed by the donor and fenced the entire lot
without the donor’s consent. Donor demanded from donee to vacate her land, but the latter
refused. Hence, donor filed a complaint for recovery of possession and rescission of donation, on
the ground of ingratitude.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the donation may be revoked.


2. Whether the action has prescribed.

RULING:
1. Yes. Donee’s act of occupying the portion pertaining to the donor without the latter’s
knowledge 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 action for revocation.

2. No. The action to revoke a donation by reason of ingratitude prescribes within one year from:
(1) the time the donor had knowledge of the fact and, (2) it was possible for him to bring the
action. The concurrence of these two requisites must be shown by the donee in order to bar the
present action. Donee failed to do so. He reckoned the 1 year prescriptive period from the
occurrence of the usurpation of the property and not from the time the donor had knowledge of
the usurpation. Moreover, donee failed to prove that at the time the donor acquired knowledge of
his usurpation, it was possible for the donor to institute an action for revocation. Basic is the rule
that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.

You might also like