Short answer. Yes. Article 760 of the Civil Code specifically covers this situation: a donation made by someone who believed a child was dead can be revoked or reduced when that child turns out to be living. The donor's mistaken belief that he had no living child is precisely the ground the statute names.
What the law says
If the child of the donor, whom the latter believed to be dead when he made the donation, should turn out to be living
Civil Code, Article 760 — Donation Revoked by the Birth of a Child. Read the full provision →
What Article 760 says
The Civil Code allows a donation to be revoked or reduced when, at the time of the gift, the donor had no children or descendants — and then circumstances change. Article 760 lists three events that trigger this right. Two of them involve children who arrive after the donation: the birth of a child afterward, or a subsequent adoption. The third is your father's situation: "If the child of the donor, whom the latter believed to be dead when he made the donation, should turn out to be living." The statute does not require that the donor acted unreasonably — the ground is the belief, not the evidence behind it.
Why the law gives this protection
Donations are generous acts, often made when a person thinks their estate has no one to protect. If a donor believed all his children were dead and donated freely, only to discover a living child later, the logic of the donation collapses. The law recognizes that the donor would not have made the same gift — or would have made a smaller one — had he known the truth. Revocation restores what the child would otherwise have received from a parent's estate. It is less about punishing the donee and more about correcting a decision made on false premises.
How revocation and reduction work
Article 760 says the donation "may be revoked or reduced" — not automatically voided. The mechanism for doing so is set out in the article that follows. Whether the donation is fully revoked or only cut back depends on the child's share under the rules on legitimes and the extent of what was donated. This is a distinction that matters: if the donation was modest relative to the estate, reduction rather than full revocation may be the practical outcome.
Who is covered
The article covers donations made by a person who had no children or descendants — legitimate, legitimated, or illegitimate — at the time of the donation. If your father had other living children when he donated, this specific ground may not apply in the same way, because the premise of the rule is a donor who believed he was donating freely, with no dependents to protect. Whether the eldest child's reappearance gives rise to revocation or a claim against the estate on other grounds is a question that turns on the specific facts.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Heirs of Cesario Velasquez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 126996, February 15, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →