Scribd
Upload
217 views1 page

Vda Arroyo Versus Rosario de Molo-Kiram, Putli Sheena Gada

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision to dismiss a case filed by Vda. de Arroyo regarding a donation made by her father Ignacio Arroyo. Ignacio Arroyo had partitioned his estate among his three children through a public instrument in 1924. Vda. de Arroyo argued the donation to the third child was inofficious, or unfair, and sought its return. However, the trial court found Vda. de Arroyo failed to prove the donation was unjust. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that accepting someone as competent to testify does not mean the court must believe that testimony is sufficient to prove their argument.

Uploaded by

Chim Chim
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
217 views1 page

Vda Arroyo Versus Rosario de Molo-Kiram, Putli Sheena Gada

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision to dismiss a case filed by Vda. de Arroyo regarding a donation made by her father Ignacio Arroyo. Ignacio Arroyo had partitioned his estate among his three children through a public instrument in 1924. Vda. de Arroyo argued the donation to the third child was inofficious, or unfair, and sought its return. However, the trial court found Vda. de Arroyo failed to prove the donation was unjust. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that accepting someone as competent to testify does not mean the court must believe that testimony is sufficient to prove their argument.

Uploaded by

Chim Chim
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

Vda.

de Arroyo vs El Beaterio del Santissimo Rosario de Molo


G.R. No. L-22005

Facts : Decision of Court of Appeals "that the plaintiffs have failed to establish fair and
reliable basis upon which the donation in question may be justly declared inofficious",
and, for this reason, dismissing the case, without costs. On July 2, 1924, the late
Ignacio Arroyo partitioned his estate inter vivos among this three children Jose Arroyo,
Mariano Arroyo and Sor Rosario (Arroyo) de la Visitacion by executing with them a
public instrument called 'Convenio de Re-particidn de Bienes y Adjudicacion de
Herencia' . The three children also received therein their inheritance from their
deceased mother Maria Pidal, the first wife of Ignacio Arroyo. The estate of Ignacio
Arroyo was apportioned in four parts, with specified properties being given to each of
the three children, and the remaining properties, likewise specified, being adjudicated
to Ignacio Arroyo, or reserved for himself, as comprising his one-third portion of free
disposal.

Issue : Whether or not Court of Appeals gravely erred in not declaring the donation in
question inofficious and in not ordering the return to petitioners of the excess thereof

Ruling : No. After a careful consideration of the foregoing facts, the trial court held
"that the plaintiffs have failed to establish fair and reasonable basis upon which the
donation in question may be justly declared inofficious" To hold that a particular
person is competent to testify upon a given matter does not mean that his testimony
upon the same must be believed by the Court or must be deemed by the Court or
must be deemed by the latter to be of sufficient probative value to establish the point
which it was intended to prove.

You might also like