Short answer. The one-year period runs from when the donor learned of the act — not from when it happened. Article 769 of the Civil Code starts the clock from the time the donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for the donor to bring the action.
What the law says
This action prescribes within one year, to be counted from the time the donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him to bring the action.
Civil Code, Article 769 — Prescription Of Action For Ingratitude. Read the full provision →
Knowledge, not the act itself, starts the clock
Article 769 adopts a discovery rule: the one-year prescriptive period begins when the donor had knowledge of the fact, not when the donee committed the ingratitude. This is a significant protection for donors who may not immediately learn what has happened — for instance, when a donee attacks or defrauds the donor while the donor is elsewhere, or conceals the act. The period runs from actual knowledge, and Article 769 adds a second requirement: it must also have been possible for the donor to bring the action at that point.
The 'possible to bring the action' requirement
Article 769 imposes a dual condition: knowledge of the act, and the practical ability to sue. If the donor learned of the ingratitude but was at that moment physically incapacitated, imprisoned, or otherwise unable to file an action, the prescriptive period does not run until the impediment is lifted. This prevents a donee from exploiting circumstances that made it impossible for the donor to act — the one-year window is only consumed when the donor is both informed and capable of pursuing the revocation.
The advance-renunciation prohibition
Article 769 also provides that the revocation action cannot be renounced in advance. A donor cannot validly give up the right to revoke for ingratitude before any ingratitude has occurred. A clause in the deed of donation waiving this right in advance would have no legal effect. The right is preserved for the donor as a matter of public policy — it is only after the ingratitude actually occurs, and the donor knows of it, that the choice to sue or forgive becomes the donor's to make.
Why this matters if you are a donor in this situation
If you are a donor who recently discovered that someone you gave property to has betrayed you — through an offense against your person, a criminal act against you, or conduct amounting to ingratitude recognized under the Civil Code — the one-year window is running from the moment you learned of it. A year sounds like a long time but it passes quickly in the context of gathering evidence, deciding whether to pursue the matter, and consulting with legal counsel. Missing the deadline extinguishes the right to revoke for that specific act of ingratitude, though a later separate act could give rise to a fresh period.
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.
- Sps. Agripino and Isabel Gestopa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111904, October 5, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Rodolfo Noceda vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 119730, September 2, 1999 — read the decision on LawPhil →