I. Legal Basis

The revocation of a donation propter nuptias or an ordinary donation (inter vivos) on the ground of ingratitude is governed by Articles 760, 765, and 86(4) of the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386, as amended) and Articles 243–252 of the Family Code (Executive Order No. 209, as amended).

Principal provisions:

Art. 765, Civil Code – Donations inter vivos may be revoked for any of the causes mentioned in Article 760, among which is ingratitude.
Art. 760, Civil Code – Enumerates the specific acts of ingratitude:
1. If the donee commits any offense against the person, honor, or 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 if he should prove it, unless the crime or act has been committed against the donee himself, his wife, or children under his authority;
3. If the donee unduly refuses to support the donor when the donee is legally or morally bound to give such support.
Art. 86(4), Family Code – Donations by reason of marriage may be revoked for the same causes as ordinary donations, including ingratitude.

II. Nature of the Action

Revocation due to ingratitude is a judicial action; it cannot be effected extrajudicially.
The action is personal to the donor (or his heirs if the donor died without having filed the action).
The action prescribes in one (1) year from knowledge by the donor of the fact of ingratitude and of the donee’s capacity to be sued (Art. 769, Civil Code).
Prescription is interrupted by the filing of the complaint, by extrajudicial demand, or by acknowledgment of the act of ingratitude by the donee.

III. Quantum and Standard of Proof Required

Supreme Court jurisprudence is uniform and emphatic:

Full or Preponderant Evidence Required
The act of ingratitude must be proven by clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence, more than mere preponderance of evidence, approaching the quantum required in criminal cases (although the action remains civil).
Leading cases:
- De Leon v. CA (G.R. No. 96107, 19 August 1992)
- Republic v. CA and Bautista (G.R. No. 100709, 27 September 1994)
- Mate v. CA (G.R. No. 107237, 29 November 1999)
- Gonzales v. Gonzales-Stepana (G.R. No. 194419, 19 September 2012)
- Heirs of the Late Justice Jose B.L. Reyes v. Demetria (G.R. No. 233217, 27 February 2019)
Mere Allegations or Suspicion Not Sufficient
The Court has repeatedly held that “ingratitude is not lightly presumed; it must be established by clear and positive evidence.” (Republic v. CA, supra)
Corroborative Evidence Usually Required
Testimony of the donor alone, especially if uncorroborated and contradicted by documentary evidence or the donee’s own witnesses, is generally insufficient.

IV. Specific Acts of Ingratitude: Evidentiary Requirements

Act of Ingratitude (Art. 760)	Typical Evidence Required	Notable Rulings
1. Offense against person, honor, or property of donor or his family under parental authority	Criminal conviction (ideal but not indispensable); credible eyewitness testimony; medical certificates; police reports; photographs of injuries; barangay blotter	Physical injuries, grave threats, slander by deed, unjust vexation, trespass, malicious mischief qualify. Slight physical injuries or slander by word usually insufficient unless grave.
2. Malicious imputation of crime or moral turpitude to donor	Audio/video recording; text messages; social media posts; sworn statements; witnesses to the imputation; proof that imputation was made publicly or maliciously	Mere filing of a complaint against the donor does NOT constitute ingratitude unless proven to be baseless and malicious (De Leon v. CA).
3. Undue refusal to support donor when legally/morally bound	Demand letters; proof of donor’s destitution; proof of donee’s financial capacity; affidavits of neighbors; bank statements; income tax returns	Moral obligation alone is sufficient if the donee has ample means and the donor is in need.

V. Procedural and Practical Notes

The action must be filed in the Regional Trial Court (real action if immovable property is involved; otherwise personal action).
Lis pendens may be annotated on the title.
Revocation is retroactive to the date of the donation; the donee must return the property plus fruits from the filing of the complaint.
If the property has been sold to a third person in good faith, revocation is ineffective as to the buyer, but the donee is liable for damages.
The one-year prescriptive period is strictly enforced. Knowledge of the act and of the donee’s capacity to be sued are both required to start the running of the period.

VI. Leading Supreme Court Pronouncements on Insufficient Proof

De Leon v. CA (1992) – Filing of multiple criminal complaints by the donee against the donor does not per se constitute ingratitude absent proof of malice.
Republic v. CA (1994) – Slanderous words uttered in the heat of anger do not constitute ingratitude.
Mate v. CA (1999) – Mere strained relations or family discord is not ingratitude.
Gonzales v. Gonzales-Stepana (2012) – The donor’s bare testimony that the donee “abandoned” him, without proof of demand for support and capacity to give it, is insufficient.
Heirs of Justice Reyes v. Demetria (2019) – The Court again reiterated that “acts of ingratitude must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, not by mere preponderance.”

VII. Summary: What Constitutes “Proof” in Practice

To succeed in a revocation action for ingratitude in Philippine courts:

Present documentary evidence (demand letters, medical records, police reports, screenshots, bank records, etc.).
Offer credible, disinterested witnesses who can testify to the specific act.
Prove malice or grave character of the act.
File the complaint within one year from knowledge of the act and the donee’s capacity to be sued.
Avoid relying solely on the donor’s self-serving testimony.

Failure on any of these points almost invariably results in dismissal, as the Supreme Court has consistently protected the stability of donations against unsubstantiated claims of ingratitude.