Judgment 985/2025 of the Spanish Supreme Court - Tribunal Supremo español on the revocation of a donation in Spain for ingratitude and the conviction of the donee for private violence ‘delito de coacciones leves’ (in Spanish).

In the case under appeal in Spain, the Civil Chamber of the Spanish Court of Cassation upheld the appeal filed by the appellant, citing extensive case law, overturning the judgment issued by the Provincial Court and confirming the decision of the court of second instance, which had declared the revocation of the donation on grounds of ingratitude admissible.
The Spanish Tribunal Supremo, in its legal opinion on the “Fundamentos de derecho”, indicated first of all that the interest in cassation is proven in light of the judgments in which that section of the Spanish Court of Cassation dealt with the revocation of donations on grounds of ingratitude.

The Court of Cassation in Spain has therefore ruled that "The application of the doctrine of the chamber to the case under consideration determines the acceptance of the appeal, the cassation of the contested judgment and the confirmation of the judgment of the court, which upheld the action for revocation of the donation on grounds of ingratitude. >> That is to say (in Italian) that ‘The application of the doctrine to the case in question entails the acceptance of the appeal in cassation, the cassation of the contested judgment and the confirmation of the judgment of the court that upheld the action for revocation of the donation on grounds of ingratitude.’
The Court emphasised that Article 648.1 of the Spanish Civil Code applies to all criminal behaviour that offends or harms the donor and reveals ingratitude.

The Civil Section of the Spanish Court of Cassation has considered that "The care provided by the donee to the donor prior to the donation may explain the reasons that would have prompted the donor to favour the donee, but they do not constitute a licence authorising the donee to perform any act subsequently, and precisely what is referred to in the revocation of the donation on grounds of ingratitude contemplated in Article 648 of the Civil Code is the ungrateful behaviour of the person who has already received the donation." "The attention paid by the donee to the donor prior to the donation may explain the reasons that would have prompted the donor to favour the donee, but it does not constitute authorisation for the donee to perform any subsequent act, and it is precisely this that the revocation of the donation for ingratitude contemplated in Article 648 of the Civil Code refers to, namely the ungrateful behaviour of the person who has already received the donation. "

In the case analysed by the Court of Cassation, the donee had changed the lock on the door of the property of which the donor had retained the usufruct. A neighbour noticed this and called the Spanish police, and the Spanish Court of Cassation ruled that such behaviour 'reveals contempt and disregard for the donor, whose wishes were completely disregarded by the donee when changing the locks, as he sought to claim exclusive use of the property that the donor only intended to grant him upon his death. In other words, it “reveals contempt and disregard for the donor, whose wishes were completely disregarded by the donee when he changed the locks, as the donee claimed exclusive use of the property that the donor only wanted to assign to him at the time of his death”.

Furthermore, the Court of Cassation indicated that "The fact that the donor moved into a residence a few days after making the donation to the defendant, who arranged for the admission to the residence, did not allow the defendant to assume decisions regarding the use and enjoyment of the property, which belonged solely to the donor by virtue of the reservation he made of the usufruct.... " (in Italian) ‘The fact that the donor moved into a residence a few days after making the donation to the defendant, who was the one who arranged for the donor to move into the residence, did not allow the defendant to make decisions regarding the use and enjoyment of the residence, which belonged solely to the donor by virtue of the reservation of usufruct made by the donor....’  

Furthermore, "The change of lock that led to the criminal conviction of the donee for coercion reveals contempt for the donor, a disregard for the donor and his will, which must be assessed as ethically and socially reprehensible behaviour that justifies the donor's revocation of the donation under the provisions of Article 648.1. º CC.>> that is to say (in Italian) ‘The change of lock that led to the criminal conviction of the donee for private violence reveals contempt for the donor, disregard for the donor and his will, which must be considered ethically and socially reprehensible behaviour that justifies the donor's desire to revoke the donation under the provisions of Article 648.1 of the Civil Code.’

**************************************************************