Text of the provision
Art. 765. The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor, by reason of ingratitude in the following cases:
(1) If the donee should commit some offense against the person, the honor or the property of the donor, or of his wife or children under his parental authority;
(2) If the donee imputes to the donor any criminal offense, or any act involving moral turpitude, even though he should prove it, unless the crime or the act has been committed against the donee himself, his wife or children under his authority;
(3) If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally bound to give support to the donor.
(648a)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
A donation may also be revoked at the donor's instance for ingratitude: where the donee commits an offence against the person, honour or property of the donor or of the donor's wife or children under his parental authority; where the donee imputes to the donor a crime or an act of moral turpitude, even if proved, unless it was committed against the donee, his wife or his children under his authority; or where the donee unduly refuses support he is legally or morally bound to give the donor.
Related provisions
- Article 764 — Revocation For Non-Compliance With Conditions.
- Article 766 — Effect Of Revocation On Third Persons.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.