Short answer. Yes, if you are a compulsory heir inheriting alongside other compulsory heirs. Under Article 1061 of the Civil Code, every compulsory heir must bring into the estate any property received from the decedent during their lifetime by way of donation or other gratuitous title, so it can be counted in determining each heir's legitime and in accounting for the partition.
What the law says
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.
Civil Code, Article 1061 — Collation Defined. Read the full provision →
What collation is and who it applies to
Collation is the process of accounting for gifts received during the donor's lifetime when the estate is eventually divided. Article 1061 of the Civil Code defines who must do this: "Every compulsory heir, who succeeds with other compulsory heirs." The obligation applies only to compulsory heirs — those whom the law protects with a guaranteed minimum share (the legitime), principally legitimate children, parents, and the surviving spouse. If you are a compulsory heir and you are inheriting alongside other compulsory heirs, any property or right you received from the decedent gratuitously while they were alive must be brought into the calculation.
What must be brought back
The statute covers "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." The key element is gratuitous title — a transfer without compensation. A formal deed of donation clearly qualifies. But so does any other free transfer: an informal gift, a waiver of a debt, or property transferred under an act of liberality. What does not require collation is a transfer made for full value — a purchase, a payment of debt, or other onerous transaction — because those are not gifts that reduce the estate.
What collation actually does
Collation does not mean physically returning the donated property to the estate. Article 1061 says the property must be brought into "the mass of the estate" for computation purposes. What is added back is the value of the donation at the time it was made, not the property itself. This combined figure — the actual estate at death plus the collated donations — is then used to compute each compulsory heir's legitime (their guaranteed minimum share) and to work out the partition account. The practical effect is that what you received during the donor's lifetime is credited against what you receive at death. If the donation already satisfies or exceeds your share, you may receive little or nothing more from the estate.
Exceptions: when you do not have to collate
The obligation to collate is not absolute. Two exceptions exist under Article 1062. First, if the donor expressly stated at the time of the gift that it was not subject to collation, that exemption is valid — though the donation can still be reduced if it was inofficious (too large relative to the legitimes of other heirs). Second, if you choose to repudiate your inheritance entirely, you are also freed from the collation obligation — but you then receive nothing from the estate. The law does not allow you to keep the gift, accept the inheritance, and skip the collation computation. If neither exception applies, the accounting must include your donation.
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.
- Amelia P. Arellano vs. Francisco Pascual and Miguel Pascual, G.R. No. 189776, December 15, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Ernesto Morales, namely: Rosario M. Dangsalan, et al. vs. Astrid Morales Agustin, G.R. No. 224849, June 6, 2018 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rolando Sanchez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 108947, September 29, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Thelma N. Aranas vs. Teresita V. Mercado, et al, G.R. No. 156407, January 15, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →