HEIRS OF FAVIS, SR.
, V- GONZALES DONATION transferring and conveying the two properties
FC 45(5), 45(6): A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,
existing at the time of marriage: 5) That either party was physically incapable
of consuming the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and
appears to be incurable; or 6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually
transmitted disease found found to be serious and appears to be incurable.
NCC 820: Any person of sound mind and of the age of eighteen years or
more, and not blind, deaf, or dumb, and able to read and write, may be a
witness to the execution of a will mentioned in Article 805 of this Code.
PONENTE: Perez, J.
DOCTRINE: The Donation in question is flawed because of vititated
consent. To determine the instrinsic validity of the deed of donation subject
of the action for annulment, the mental state/condition of the donor at the time
of its execution must be taken into account. Factors such as his age, health,
environment among others should be considered.
RULING FORMAT: RTC affirmed. CA-denied, SC-REVERSED AND
SET ASIDE.
FACTS:
1.! Dr. Mariano Favis, Sr. was married to Capitolina with whom he had
seven children, of which one of them became his doctor later on
named Mercedes. However, Capitolina died causing Dr. Favis to
marry Juana as his common-law wife to whom he sired a child
named Mariano. When they both got married on 1974, Dr. Favis
executed an affidavit acknowledging Mariano as one of his
legitimate children. Mariano later on married Larcelita, with whom
he has four children.
2.! Dr. Favis died due to cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to multi-
organ/system failure secondary to sepsis secondary to pneumonia.
But prior to this, he was already suffering from Hiatal Hernia and
Parkinsons disease and had long been taking medications for years.
On July 1995, he died intestate leaving properties. Among the five
properties he left, two of those are a parcel of land located in Vigan,
Ilocos Sur and a commercial building (See original case for full list).
On October 16, 1994, he allegedly executed a DEED OF
mentioned in favor of his grandchildren with Juana.
3.! Claiming that the said donations prejudiced their legitime, Dr. Favis
children with Capitolina (petitioners), filed an action for annulment
of the Deed of Donation, inventory, liquidation, and partition of
property before the RTC of Vigal, Ilocos Sur against Juana, spouses
Mariano and Larcelita, and their grandchildren (respondent).
4.! In their Answer with Counterclaim, respondents assert that the
properties donated do not form part of the state of the late Dr. Favis
because said donation was made inter vivos, hence petitioners have
no stake over said properties.
5.! When they came to the RTC, the court limited the issues to the
validity of the deed of donation and whether or not respondents
Juana and Mariano are compulsory heirs of Dr. Favis. In their
Decision, the RTC nullified the Deed of Donation and cancelled the
corresponding tax declaration. The trial court found that Dr. Favis,
at the age of 92 and with plagued illnesses, could not have had full
control of his mental capacities to execute said Deed of Donation.
When it came to the second issue, the court ruled that the subsequent
marriage of Dr. Favis with Juana legitimated the status of Mariano,
thus making them compulsory heirs also.
6.! Respondents interposed an appeal before the CA challenging the
RTCs Decision on the ground of vitiated consent; that Dr. Favis
was in full control of his senses when he made the Deed of Donation.
The Court then ordered the dismissal of the petitioners
nullification case but not on the grounds that the respondents
invoked. In other words, the CA focused on their failure to attain
earnest efforts of a compromise instead of the one being focused on
by the RTC. They focused on the argument that there was a lack of
earnest efforts to achieve a compromise instead.
7.! Petitioners brought this case to the SC, this time focusing on the
arguments presented in the RTC and assailing the Decision of the
CA.
ISSUE/S: W/N the Deed of Donation was valid.
HELD: No. The Donation in question is flawed because of vititated consent.
To determine the instrinsic validity of the deed of donation subject of the
action for annulment, the mental state/condition of the donor at the time of its
execution must be taken into account. Factors such as his age, health,
environment among others should be considered. As testified to by Dr.
Mercedes Favis and other doctors, who were all present as expert witnesses,
the donor had long been suffering from Hiatal Hernia and Parkinsons
disease. That a person with Parkinsons disease for a long time may not have
a good functioning brain because in the later stage of disease, 1/3 of his death
develop from this kind of disease, and or dementia. His lungs being
compromised and his heart not pumping enough oxygen to his brain will
make a person not in full control of his faculties.

The facts of the case show that compromise was never an option
insofar as the respondents were concerned. The impossibility of compromise
instead of litigation was shown not alone by the absence of a motion to
dismiss but on the respondents insistence on the validity of the donation in
favor of the two properties. The CA ignored that facts of the case that clearly
demonstrated the refusal of the respondents to compromise. Instead, it
ordered the dismissal of petitioners complaint on the ground that it did not
allege what in fact was shown during the trial. Moreover, it was only when
Dr. Mercedes left the house when the Deed of Donation was made bolstering
the fact that it was not respondents intention to achieve a compromise.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and

the judgment of the RTC is AFFIRMED.