Short answer. Very likely yes. Article 760 says every donation inter vivos made by a person having no children may be revoked or reduced if the donor afterward has a legitimate, legitimated or illegitimate child — even a posthumous one. So the birth of your child after the donation is a recognised ground to revoke or reduce it.
What the law says
Every donation inter vivos, made by a person having no children or descendants, legitimate or legitimated by subsequent marriage, or illegitimate, may be revoked or reduced as provided in the next article, by the happening of any of these events:
Civil Code, Article 760 — Donation Revoked by the Birth of a Child. Read the full provision →
What the law says
If the donor, after the donation, should have legitimate or legitimated or illegitimate children, even though they be posthumous
Civil Code, Article 760 — Donation Revoked by the Birth of a Child. Read the full provision →
The rule: a later child can undo the gift
Article 760 protects a donor who gives property away while childless and then becomes a parent. It provides that every donation inter vivos, made by a person having no children or descendants, legitimate or legitimated by subsequent marriage, or illegitimate, may be revoked or reduced when certain family events occur afterward. The premise is that the donor gave generously precisely because there was no child to provide for. When a child arrives, the law lets the donor reclaim or cut down the gift so that the new descendant is not left unprotected by a decision made before they existed.
The three triggering events
The article lists three events that open the door. The first is the plain case in your question: If the donor, after the donation, should have legitimate or legitimated or illegitimate children, even though they be posthumous. A child born after you gave the property away — including one born after your death — qualifies. The second applies if the child of the donor, whom the donor believed dead when the gift was made, should turn out to be living. The third applies if the donor subsequently adopts a minor child. Any one of these three, standing alone, is enough to invoke the article.
Revoked or reduced — not always the whole gift
Notice the article speaks of revoking OR reducing the donation. The remedy is calibrated to protect the child, not simply to strip the donee. Depending on the size of the gift and the estate, the donation may be cut back only so far as needed rather than cancelled outright; the mechanics of that adjustment are governed by the following provision of the Code. Property already handed over can therefore be returned in whole or in part. This is why the article pairs the two words — the aim is to restore what the child is entitled to, no more and no less.
Limits and cautions
A few limits are worth stressing. The right belongs to a donor who had no child or descendant when the donation was made; it does not let someone who was already a parent revoke a gift simply because circumstances later changed. The events are specific — birth, a believed-dead child found alive, or adoption of a minor — not any general change of heart. There are also time limits on bringing the action, and the rights of third persons who dealt with the property in the meantime can complicate recovery. Because both the deadline and the extent of recovery turn on detail, act on this ground promptly.
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 →