Buhay De Roma v. CA (July 23, 1987) Facts: Candeleria De Roma adopted two daughters, Buhay and Rosalinda.

She died intestate. When administration proceedings was ongoing, Buhay was appointed administratrix and filed an inventory of the estate. Opposed by Rosalinda on the ground that certain properties donated by their mother to Buhay and fruits thereof had not been included. The Parcels of Land totaled P10,297.50 and the value is not disputed. The TC issued an order in favor of Buhay because when Candelaria donated the properties to Buhay she said in the Deed of Donation sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay na din a mababawing muli which the TC interpreted as a prohibition to collate and besides the legitimes of the two daughters were not impaired. On appeal, it was reversed as it merely described the donation as irrevocable not an express prohibition to collate. Issue: Whether or not these lands are subject to collation. Held: The pertinent Civil Code provisions are: Art. 1061. Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs, must bring into the mass of the estate any property or right which he may have received from the decedent, during the lifetime of the latter, by way of donation, or any other gratuitous title, in order that it may be computed in the determination of the legitime of each heir, and in the account of the partition. (1035a) Art. 1062. Collation shall not take place among compulsory heirs if the donor should have so expressly provided, or if the donee should repudiate the inheritance, unless the donation should be reduced as inofficious. (1036) The SC affirmed the appellate courts decision and that it merely described the donation as irrevocable. The Fact that a donation is irrevocable does not necessarily exempt the donated properties from collation as required under the provisions of the NCC. Given the precise language of the deed of donation the decedent donor would have included an express prohibition to collate if that had been the donors intention. Absent such indication of that intention, the rule not the exemption should be applied.-MJA