Short answer. Possibly yes. Article 765 lets a donor revoke a donation for ingratitude if the donee unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally bound to give support to the donor. So an unjustified refusal to support you can be a ground to take the gift back — but the refusal must be undue.
What the law says
If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally bound to give support to the donor.
Civil Code, Article 765 — Revocation For Ingratitude. Read the full provision →
Refusing support is a form of ingratitude
Article 765 allows a donor to revoke a donation by reason of ingratitude. Among the grounds it lists, the third speaks directly to your situation: revocation is available if he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally bound to give support to the donor. The idea is that someone who accepted your generosity, and who is bound to help you when you are in need, betrays that relationship by turning you away. The law treats such a refusal as ingratitude serious enough to justify undoing the gift and recovering the property that was donated.
Two things must be true: a duty, and an undue refusal
The ground has two moving parts. First, the donee must be legally or morally bound to give support to you. A legal duty of support arises among certain family members; a moral duty can arise from the relationship and the benefit the donee received. Second, the refusal must be undue — that is, unjustified. A donee who genuinely cannot afford to give support, or who has a good reason to withhold it, has not necessarily been ungrateful. It is the wrongful, unjustified turning-away of a donor in need that the article targets, not every failure to help.
What support means here
Support in this context is not limited to money. In Philippine law support covers what is indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance and, in proper cases, education, according to the family's means. So a donee's refusal to provide for a donor's basic needs — food, shelter, medical care — when bound and able to do so can amount to the ingratitude the article describes. The measure is tied to necessity and to the donee's capacity, so both the donor's genuine need and the donee's ability to meet it form part of the picture a court will weigh.
The limits of this ground
This remedy is bounded. It reaches an undue refusal of support, not ordinary strain, distance or imperfect care between donor and donee. If there was no duty to support, or the donee had a legitimate reason to decline, the ground may fail. Revocation for ingratitude also carries a short time limit and procedural requirements, and it is largely personal to the donor, so the law restricts how far heirs may carry it. Rights that innocent third persons gained over the property before revocation can affect what is recovered. Because the window is narrow, a donor relying on this ground should act promptly and keep evidence of the need and the refusal.
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.
- Cerila J. Calanasan, represented by Teodora J. Calanasan as Attorney-in-fact vs. Spouses Virgilio Dolorito and Evelyn C. Dolorito, G.R. No. 171937, November 25, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Romulo Eduarte, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 105944, February 9, 1996 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Sps. Agripino and Isabel Gestopa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111904, October 5, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Heirs of Cesario Velasquez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 126996, February 15, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →