cj tan cases

7/21/2019 Cj Tan Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cj-tan-cases 1/18

GONZALES V HEIRS OF THOMAS AND PAULA CRUZPANGANIBAN; September 16, 1999

NATUREPetition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Cort of Appea!s reversin" decision of

tria! cort and orderin" Gon#a!es to srrender possession of the propert$% &'(C of San )ateo,'i#a! dismissed case in favor of Gon#a!es*

FACTS+ ec 1, 19-. / Pa!a Ano Cr#, to"ether with heirs of (homas and Pa!a Cr# &0essors*

entered into a CN('AC( 2 03AS34P5'CAS3 with 2e!i7 Gon#a!es &so!e proprietor of 2e!"on

2arms40essee* of a ha!f+portion of a parce! of !and sitated in 'odri"e#, 'i#a!, covered b$

(ransfer Certi8cate of (it!e

+ Contract contains the fo!!owin" provisionsPAR.1. (he terms of this contract is for a period of one $ear pon the si"nin" thereof% Afterthe period of this Contract, the 03SS33 sha!! prchase the propert$ on the a"reeab!e price of 1) pa$ab!e w4in : $ears period with an interest of 1: per annm%%%PAR.2. (he 03SS33 sha!! pa$ b$ wa$ of anna! renta! an amont e<iva!ent to P:,=>> per

hectare, pon si"nin" of contract on 1:4>14-.PAR.9. (he 03SS'S hereb$ commit themse!ves and sha!! undertake to obtain a separateand distinct T.C.T. over the herein leased portion to the 03SS33 within a reasonab!e period of time which sha!! not in an$ case e7ceed ? $ears, after which a new Contract sha!! bee7ected b$ the parties which sha!! be the same in a!! respects with this Contract insofar asthe terms and conditions are concerned%- Gon#a!es paid P:=>> per hectare or P1=( anna! renta!; he too@ possession of the propert$and insta!!ed Sambrano as his careta@er- e did not e7ercise his option to prchase the propert$ immediate!$ after e7piration of 1+$r!ease% e remained in possession of the propert$ withot pa$in" the prchase price providedfor in the Contract, and w4o pa$in" an$ frther renta!s%- Cr# sent ot a !etter to Gon#a!es informin" him of the !essors decision to rescind theContract de to a breach committed b$ Gon#a!es; !etter a!so served as a demand for him to

vacate the premises within 1> da$s from the receipt of the !etter- Gon#a!es refsed to vacate the propert$% Isse was bro"ht before Br"$% Captain of SanIsidro%+ )arch 1-, 19- / Since Gon#a!es refsed to appear before the Br"$% Capt, a certi8cationa!!owin" the case to be bro"ht to Cort was issed% + A" :?, 19- / 2ina! demand !etter to vacate premises was sent b$ remainin" !essors afterthe death of Pa!a Ano Cr#, which Gon#a!es received bt did not heed- Said propert$ is crrent!$ the sbect of an e7tra+dicia! partition% (it!e to propert$ remainsin the name of Cr#s predecessors+in+interest, Bernardina Ca!i7to and Severo Cr#- Cr#s 8!ed a comp!aint for recover$ of the possession of the propert$ a!!e"in" breach of par%9 and pa$ment of on!$ P=>( of the P=>>( a"reed down pa$ment on the prchase priceof P1)Ruling of RTC

+ Par%9 is a condition and it c!ear!$ indicates that the eirs of Cr# sha!! obtain a (ransferCerti8cate of (it!e in the name of the lessee within ? $ears before a new contract is to beentered into nder the same terms and conditions as the ori"ina! Contract of 0ease4Prchase+ 2ai!re of 0essors to secre the (C( does not entit!e them to rescind the contract% (hepower to rescind is "iven to the inred part$%+ A!so, the$ cannot terminate the Contract of 0ease de to their fai!re to notif$ thedefendant in de time of sch intention% emand made wi!! come nder the imp!ied new!ease of Art% 16-: and 16>%Ruling of CA



+ (ransfer of tit!e to the propert$ in Gon#a!es name cannot be interpreted as a conditionprecedent to the pa$ment of the a"reed prchase price%+ (erms of contract re<ire no interpretation; norma! corse of thin"s in sa!e of rea!properties dictate that there mst rst be pa$ment of a"reed prchase price before transferof tit!e can be made%

ISSUES1% DN CA erred in the interpretation of the E!aw between the partiesF:% DN par% 9 of the Contract of 0ease4Prchase is a condition.% DN respondents can rescind the contract

HELD1% es%Ratio In the interpretation of contracts, if some stip!ation sho!d admit of severa!meanin"s, it sha!! be nderstood as bearin" that import most ade<ate to render iteHecta!% Considerin" the antecedents of the ownership of the dispted !ot, Gon#a!esinterpretation that par%9 is a condition precedent to the prchase of the propert$ renders itmost eHecta!%Reasoning Both '(C and CA interpreted par%9 to mean that respondents ob!i"edthemse!ves to obtain a (C( in the name of petitioner% Bt petitioner maintains thatrespondents were ob!i"ated to obtain a (C( in their names%+ Par%9 was intended to ensre that respondents wo!d have a va!id tit!e over the speci8cportion the$ were se!!in" to the petitioner% At the time the contract was e7ected, !and wasnot re"istered in the names of !essors, and e7tra+dicia! proceedin"s were sti!! on"oin"%+ In a contract of sa!e, tit!e to the propert$ passes to the vendee pon the de!iver$ of thethin" so!d% &N3) A( 5 NN AB3( no one can "ive what one does not have*+ In the Contract, respondents were "iven a ma7imm of ? $ears to obtain a separate (C(%Gon#a!es a!so advanced P=>( to them e7pedite transfer of (C( to their names%+ CA interpretation i"nores !ast part of par%9, statin" that after a separate (C( had beenobtained, Ea new contract sha!! be e7ected which sha!! be the same in a!! respects with thisContract%%%F+ Par%1 was eHective!$ modi8ed b$ par%9% Gon#a!es can on!$ be compe!!ed to perform hisob!i"ation nder par1, after Cr#s have comp!ied with par9%:% es%Ratio In re<irin" the !essors to obtain 8rst a separate and distinct (C( in their names, sch

nderta@in" is a condition precedent to the !essees ob!i"ation to prchase and pa$ for the

!and%

Reasoning Condition is de8ned as Eever$ ftre and ncertain event pon which an

ob!i"ation or provision is made to depend% It is a ftre and ncertain event pon which the

ac<isition or reso!tion of ri"hts is made to depend b$ those who e7ecte the ridica! act%F

+ Dithot the f!8!!ment of the condition, sa!e of the propert$ nder the Contract cannot be

perfected, and Gon#a!es cannot be ob!i"ed to prchase the propert$%

.% No%Ratio (here can be no rescission of an ob!i"ation as $et non+e7istent, becase the

sspensive condition has not happened%Reasoning (he$ have not cased the transfer of the (C( to their names which is a

condition precedent to Gon#a!es ob!i"ation%

!ispositionPetition "ranted% ecision of '(C is reinstated, bt the award of mora! dama"es andattorne$s fees is de!eted for !ac@ of basis%

CORONEL V CA)30; ctober , 1996



NATUREPetition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Cort of Appea!s%

FACTS+ n Jan% 19, 19-=, the Corone!s e7ected a docment entit!ed E'eceipt of own Pa$mentF in

favor of 'amona Patricia A!cara# containin" the fo!!owin" conditions apprtenant to the sa!eof their hose and !ot1% 'amona wi!! ma@e a down pa$ment of P=>,>>> pon e7ection of the docment

aforestated%:% (he Corone!s wi!! case the transfer in their names of the tit!e of their propert$

re"istered in the name of their deceased father, Constancio P% Corone!, pon receiptof the P=>,>>> down pa$ment%

.% 5pon the transfer in their names of the sbect propert$, the Corone!s wi!! e7ectethe deed of abso!te sa!e in favor of 'amona and the !atter wi!! pa$ the former thewho!e ba!ance of P1,19>,>>>%

+ n the same date, Concepcion A!cara#, mother of 'amona, paid the down pa$ment of P=>,>>>% n 2eb% 6, 19-=, the propert$ ori"ina!!$ re"istered in the name of the Corone!sfather was transferred in their names nder (C( No% .:>?.% Sbse<ent!$, the Corone!sso!d the propert$ covered b$ (C( No% .:>?. to intervenor+appe!!ant )abana" forP1,=->,>>> after the !atter paid P.>>,>>>% 2or this reason, the Corone!s cance!ed andrescinded the contract with 'amona b$ depositin" the down pa$ment paid b$ Concepcion inthe ban@ in trst for Ramona Patricia Alcara". A few da$s !ater, Concepcion, et a!%, 8!ed acomp!aint for speci8c performance a"ainst the Corone!s and cased the annotation of anotice of !is pendens at the bac@ of (C( No% .:?>.% )abana" then cased the annotation of a notice of adverse c!aim coverin" the same propert$ with the 'e"istr$ of eeds of e#onCit$% (he Corone!s e7ected a eed of Abso!te Sa!e over the sbect propert$ in favor of )abana"% A new tit!e on the sbect propert$ was issed in the name of )abana" nder (C(No% .=1=-:%+ (he !ower cort rendered d"ment for speci8c performance orderin" the Corone!s toe7ecte in favor of Concepcion, et a!%, a deed of abso!te sa!e coverin" that parce! of !andembraced in and covered b$ (C( No% .:?>. &now (C( No% ..1=-:* of the 'e"istr$ of eedsfor e#on Cit$, to"ether with a!! the improvements e7istin" thereon free from a!! !iens andencmbrances and once accomp!ished, to immediate!$ de!iver the said docment of sa!e toConcepcion, et a!% 5pon receipt thereof, Concepcion, et a!%, were ordered to pa$ the Corone!sthe who!e ba!ance of the prchase price amontin" to P1,19>,>>> in cash% (C( No% ..1=-:in the name of )abana" was cance!ed and de!ivered to be withot force and eHect% 2rther,the Corone!s, )abana", and a!! other persons c!aimin" nder them were ordered to vacatethe sbect propert$ and de!iver possession thereof to Concepcion, et a!% (he c!aim fordama"es and attorne$s fees 8!ed b$ Concepcion, et a!%, as we!! as the conterc!aims b$ theCorone!s and intervenors were dismissed% n appea!, the Cort f!!$ a"reed to the decisionof the tria! cort%

ISSUEDN petitioners and private respondents entered into a conditiona! contract of sa!e

HELD+ es% Dhat is c!ear!$ estab!ished b$ the p!ain !an"a"e of the sbect docment is that whenthe said E'eceipt of own Pa$mentF was prepared and si"ned b$ the Corone!s, the partieshad a"reed to a conditiona! contract of sa!e, consmmation of which is sbect on!$ to thesccessf! transfer of the certi8cate of tit!e from the name of petitioners father, ConstancioP% Corone!, to their names% (he Cort si"ni8cant!$ notes that this sspensive condition was,in fact, f!8!!ed on 2ebrar$ 6, 19-=% (hs, on said date, the conditiona! contract of sa!ebetween petitioners and private respondent 'amona became ob!i"ator$, the on!$ actre<ired for the consmmation thereof bein" the de!iver$ of the propert$ b$ means of the



e7ection of the deed of abso!te sa!e in a pb!ic instrment, which petitionersne<ivoca!!$ committed themse!ves to do as evidenced b$ the E'eceipt of own Pa$ment%F+ Art% 1?=, in corre!ation with Art% 11-1, both of the Civi! Code, p!ain!$ app!ies to the case atbench% (hs

Art. 1#$%. The contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing &hich is the ob'ect of the contract and upon the price.

(rom that moment) the parties ma* reciprocall* demand performance) sub'ect to the provisions of the la& governing the form of contracts.

Art. 11+1. ,n conditional obligations) the acuisition of rights) as &ell as theetinguishment of loss of those alread* acuired) shall depend upon the happeningof the event &hich constitutes the condition.

+ Since the condition contemp!ated b$ the parties which is the issance of a certi8cate of tit!e in petitioners names was f!8!!ed on 2eb% 6, 19-=, the respective ob!i"ations of theparties nder the contract of sa!e became mta!!$ demandab!e, that is, petitioners, asse!!ers, were ob!i"ed to present the transfer certi8cate of tit!e a!read$ in their names toprivate respondent 'amona A!cara#, the b$er, and to immediate!$ e7ecte the said deed of abso!te sa!e, whi!e the b$er on her part, was ob!i"ed to forthwith pa$ the ba!ance of theprchase price amontin" to P1,19>,>>>%+ It is a!so si"ni8cant to note that in the 8rst para"raph in pa"e 9 of their petition, petitionersconc!sive!$ admitted that

.% (he petitioners+se!!ers Corone! bond themse!ves Eto eHect the transfer in ornames from or deceased father Constancio P% Corone!, the transfer certi8cate of tit!eimmediate!$ pon receipt of the downpa$ment above+stated%F The sale &as stillsub'ect to this suspensive condition.

- Petitioners themse!ves reco"ni#ed that the$ entered into a contract of sa!e sbect to asspensive condition% n!$, the$ contend, continin" in the same para"raph, that

K ad petitioners+se!!ers not complied with this condition of 8rst transferrin" the tit!eto the propert$ nder their names, there co!d be no perfected contract of sa!e%

not aware that the$ have set their own trap for themse!ves, for Art% 11-6 of the Civi! Codee7press!$ provides that

Art. 11+/. The condition shall be deemed fullled &hen the obligor voluntaril* prevents its fulllment.

+ Besides, it sho!d be stressed and emphasi#ed that what is more contro!!in" than thesemere h$pothetica! ar"ments is the fact that the condition herein referred to &as actuall* and indisputabl* fullled on (eb. /) 19+%) when a new tit!e was issed in the names of petitioners as evidenced b$ (C( No% .:?>.%+ (he inevitab!e conc!sion is that on Jan% 19, 19-=, as evidenced b$ the docmentdenominated as E'eceipt of own Pa$mentF, the parties entered into a contract ofsa!e sbect on!$ to the sspensive condition that the se!!ers sha!! eHect the issance of newcerti8cate tit!e from that of their fathers name to their names and that, on 2eb% 6, 19-=, thiscondition was f!8!!ed%+ De, therefore, ho!d that in accordance with Art% 11- which pertinent!$ provides L

Art. 11+$. The e0ects of conditional obligations to give) once the condition has beenfullled) shall retroact to the da* of the constitution of the obligation

,n obligations to do or not to do) the courts shall determine) in each case) theretroactive e0ect of the condition that has been complied &ith.

+ the ri"hts and ob!i"ations of the parties with respect to the perfected contract of sa!ebecame mta!!$ de and demandab!e as of the time of f!8!!ment or occrrence of thesspensive condition on 2eb% 6, 19-=% As of that point in time, reciproca! ob!i"ations of bothse!!er and b$er arose%



+ Dhen the se!!ers dec!ared in the E'eceipt of own Pa$mentF that the$ received an amontas prchase price for their hose and !ot withot an$ reservation of tit!e nti! f!! pa$ment of the entire prchase price, the natra! and ordinar$ idea conve$ed is that the$ so!d theirpropert$% Dhen the E'eceipt of own Pa$mentF is considered in its entiret$, it becomes moremanifest that there was a c!ear intent on the part of petitioners to transfer tit!e to the b$er,bt since the transfer certi8cate of tit!e was sti!! in the name of petitioners father, the$

co!d not f!!$ eHect sch transfer a!tho"h the b$er was then wi!!in" and ab!e toimmediate!$ pa$ the prchase price%+ (he parties did not mere!$ enter into a contract to se!! where the se!!ers, after comp!ianceb$ the b$er with certain terms and conditions, promised to se!! the propert$ to the !atter%Dhat ma$ be perceived form the respective nderta@in"s of the parties to the contract isthat petitioners had a!read$ a"reed to se!! the hose and !ot the$ inherited from their father,comp!ete!$ wi!!in" to transfer f!! ownership of the sbect hose and !ot to the b$er if thedocments were then in order% It st so happened, however, that the transfer certi8cate of tit!e was then sti!! in the name of their father% It was more e7pedient to 8rst eHect thechan"e in the certi8cate of tit!e so as to bear their names% (hat is wh$ the$ ndertoo@ tocase the issance of a new transfer of the certi8cate of tit!e in their names pon receipt of the down pa$ment in the amont of P=>,>>>% As soon as the new certi8cate of tit!e is issedin their names, petitioners were committed to immediate!$ e7ecte the deed of abso!tesa!e% n!$ then wi!! the ob!i"ation of the b$er to pa$ the remainder of the prchase pricearise%

PARKS V PROVINCE OF TARLACAM3NC3NA; J!$ 1., 19:6

NATUREAPP3A0 from a d"ment of the Cort of 2irst Instance of (ar!ac

FACTS+ P!aintiH+appe!ant bro"ht this action a"ainst the Province of (ar!ac, the mnicipa!it$ of

(ar!ac, Concepcion Cirer and James i!! and pra$ed that he be dec!ared the abso!te ownerentit!ed to the possession of the parce! of !and, that the transfer of the same b$ themnicipa!it$ of (ar!ac to the Province of (ar!ac be ann!!ed, and the transfer certi8cateissed to the Province of (ar!ac cance!!ed%+ ct 1-, 191>, Concepcion Cirer and James i!!, the owners of parce! of !and No% :, donatedit perpeta!!$ to the mnicipa!it$ of (ar!ac, Province of (ar!ac, nder certain conditionsspeci8ed in the pb!ic docment in which the$ made the donation%+ (he donation was accepted b$ )r% Santia"o de Jess, as mnicipa! president, in the samedocment on beha!f of the mnicipa! conci! of (ar!ac% (he parce! ths donated was !aterre"istered in the name of the donee, the mnicipa!it$ of (ar!ac%+ Jan 1=, 19:1, Concepcion Cirer and James i!! so!d this parce! to p!aintiH Geor"e 0% Par@s%+ A" :?, 19:., the mnicipa!it$ of (ar!ac transferred the parce! to Province of (ar!ac% (he

Province of (ar!ac, b$ reason of the transfer, app!ied for and obtained the re"istration of the!and in its name, the correspondin" certi8cate of tit!e havin" been issed to it%+ 0ower cort dismissed the comp!aint%Petitioners Claim+ (he p!aintiH a!!e"es that the conditions of the donation had not been comp!ied with, andinvo@es the sa!e of the parce! of !and made b$ Concepcion Cirer and James i!! in his favor%a* Appe!!ant contends that a condition precedent havin" been imposed in the donation andthe same not havin" been comp!ied with, the donation never became eHective% (hisEcondition precedentF accordin" to appe!!ant, refers to the condition imposed that one of the



parce!s donated was to be sed abso!te!$ and e7c!sive!$ for the erection of a centra!schoo! and the other for a pb!ic par@, the wor@ to commence in both cases within the periodof si7 months from the date of the rati8cation b$ the parties of the docment evidencin" thedonation%b* Appe!!ant a!so contends that, in an$ event, the condition not havin" been comp!ied with,even spposin" that it was not a condition precedent bt sbse<ent, the noncomp!iance

thereof is scient case for the revocation of the donation%

ISSUEDN p!aintiH has ri"ht of action

HELD+ (he p!aintiH has no ri"ht of action% (he sa!e made b$ Cirer and i!! to Par@s cannot havean$ eHect% (he parce! havin" been donated b$ Cirer and i!! to the mnicipa!it$ of (ar!ac,which donation was accepted b$ the !atter, the tit!e to the propert$ was transferred to themnicipa!it$ of (ar!ac% (he donation was not revo@ed when Cirer and i!! made the sa!e tothe p!aintiH% In order to consider it revo@ed, it is necessar$ either 1* that the revocation hadbeen consented to b$ the donee, the mnicipa!it$ of (ar!ac, or :* that it had been dicia!!$decreed% None of these circmstances e7isted when Cirer and i!! so!d the parce! to thep!aintiH% Conse<ent!$, when the sa!e was made, Cirer and i!! were no !on"er the owners of this parce! and co!d not have so!d it to the p!aintiH, nor co!d Par@s have ac<ired it fromthem%a* with re"ard to the Econdition precedentF, it is tre that the condition has not beencomp!ied with% Bt the a!!e"ation that it is a condition precedent is erroneos% (hecharacteristic of a condition precedent is that the ac<isition of the ri"ht is not eHectedwhi!e said condition is not comp!ied with or is not deemed comp!ied with% )eanwhi!e nothin"is ac<ired and there is on!$ an e7pectanc$ of ri"ht% Conse<ent!$, when a condition isimposed, the comp!iance of which cannot be eHected e7cept when the ri"ht is deemedac<ired, sch condition cannot be a condition precedent% In the present case the conditionthat a pb!ic schoo! be erected and a pb!ic par@ made of the donated !and co!d not becomp!ied with e7cept after "ivin" eHect to the donation%b* A!tho"h the appe!!ants contention that noncomp!iance of the condition of the donationis scient "rond for revocation, the period for brin"in" an action for the revocation of thedonation has prescribed% 5nder the !aws in force &sec% ?., Code of Civ% Proc%*, the period of prescription of this c!ass of action is ten $ears% (he action for the revocation of the donationfor this case arose or Apri! 19, 1911, that is, si7 months after the rati8cation of theinstrment of donation of ctober 1-, 191>% (he comp!aint in this action was presented J!$=, 19:?, more than ten $ears after this case accred%Disposition (he d"ment appea!ed from is armed, with costs a"ainst the appe!!ant%

CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY V COURT OF APPEALSB300SI00; 199=

FACTS+ in 19.9, on 'amon 0ope#, Sr% who was a member of the Board of (rstees of the Centra!Phi!ippine Co!!e"e &now Centra! Phi!ippine 5niversit$* e7ected a deed of donation in favor of

the !atter of a parce! of !and with the fo!!owin" annotations1% the !and described sha!! be ti!i#ed b$ the CP5 e7c!sive!$ for the estab!ishment and

se of a medica! co!!e"e with a!! its bi!din"s as part of the crric!m:% the said co!!e"e sha!! not se!!, transfer or conve$ to an$ third part$ nor in an$ wa$

encmber said !and.% the said !and sha!! be ca!!ed 'A)N 0P3O CA)P5S and the said co!!e"e sha!! be nder

ob!i"ation to erect a cornerstone bearin" that name% An$ net income from the !and oran$ of its par@s sha!! be pt in a fnd to be @nown as the 'A)N 0P3O CA)P5S 25Nto be sed for improvements of said camps and erection of a bi!din" thereon



+ on )a$ .1, 19-9, the heirs of on 'amon 0ope#, Sr% 8!ed an action for ann!ment of donation, reconve$ance and dama"es a"ainst CP5 a!!e"in" that

1% since 19.9 p to the time the action was 8!ed the !atter had not comp!ied with theconditions of the donation

:% that CP5 had in fact ne"otiated with the Nationa! osin" Athorit$ to e7chan"e thedonated propert$ with another !and owned b$ the !atter

+ CP5, in its answer a!!e"ed that1% the ri"ht of the private respondents to 8!e the action had prescribed:% that it did not vio!ate an$ of the conditions in the deed of donation becase it never

sed the donated propert$ for an$ other prpose than that for which it was intended.% that it did not se!!, transfer, or conve$ it to an$ third part$

+ the (C he!d that petitioner fai!ed to comp!$ with the conditions of the donation anddec!ared it n!! and void% It frther directed the petitioner to e7ecte a deed of reconve$ance of the propert$ in favor of the heirs of the donor, name!$, private respondentsherein++ the CA r!ed that the annotations at the bac@ of petitioners certi8cate of tit!e werereso!tor$ conditions breach of which sho!d terminate the ri"hts of the donee ths ma@in"the donation revocab!e% It a!so fond that whi!e the 8rst condition mandated petitioner toti!i#e the donated propert$ for the estab!ishment of a medica! schoo!, the donor did not 87a period within which the condition mst be f!8!!ed, hence, nti! a period was 87ed for thef!8!!ment of the condition, petitioner co!d not be considered as havin" fai!ed to comp!$with its part of the bar"ain, ths, it remanded the case to the cort of ori"in for thedetermination of the time within which the petitioner sho!d comp!$ with the 8rst conditionannotated in the certi8cate of tit!e

ISSUES1% DN the <oted annotations are oneros ob!i"ations and reso!tor$ conditions:% DN the ri"ht of the respondents to initiate an action has a!read$ prescribed.% DN the Cort ma$ 87 a period within which petitioner wo!d estab!ish a medica! co!!e"e

HELD1% es% on 'amon 0ope#, Sr% e7ected for a va!ab!e consideration which is considered thee<iva!ent of the donation itse!f% 5nder Art% 11-1 of the Civi! Code, on conditiona!ob!i"ations, the ac<isition of ri"hts, as we!! as the e7tin"ishment or !oss of those a!read$ac<ired, sha!! depend pon the happenin" of the even which constittes the condition%:% No% (he condition imposed b$ the donor depended pon the e7c!sive wi!! of the donee asto when this condition sha!! be f!8!!ed% Since the time within which the condition sho!d bef!8!!ed depended pon the e7c!sive wi!! of the petitioner, it has been he!d that its abso!teacceptance and the ac@now!ed"ment of its ob!i"ation provided in the deed of donation werescient to prevent the statte of !imitations from barrin" the action of private respondentspon the ori"ina! contract which was the deed of donation% In this case, the startin" pointfrom which the ob!i"ation to comp!$ mst be conted from the e7piration of a reasonab!eperiod and opportnit$ for petitioner to f!8!! what has been char"ed pon it b$ the donor%.% No% Art% 119, where the corts ma$ 87 the dration for f!8!!ment, cannot be app!ied inthis case% )ore than a reasonab!e period of => $ears has a!read$ been a!!owed petitioner toavai! of the opportnit$ to comp!$ with the condition even if it be brdensome, to ma@e the

donation in its favor forever va!id, hence, there is no more need to 87 the dration of a termof the ob!i"ation when sch procedre wo!d be a mere technica!it$ and forma!it$ and wo!dserve no prpose than to de!a$ or !ead to an nnecessar$ and e7pensive m!tip!ication of sits%

SEPARATE OPINION

DAVIDE [dissent]



+ pointed ot an inconsistenc$ in the maorit$ opinions description of the donation in<estion% In one part, it sa$s that the donation in <estion is oneros% et in the !astpara"raph it states that the donation is basica!!$ a "ratitos one%+ the discssion on conditiona! ob!i"ations is nnecessar$ as there is no conditiona!ob!i"ation to spea@ of in this case% (he conditions imposed b$ the donor determines neitherthe e7istence nor the e7tin"ishment of the ob!i"ations of the donor and the donee with

respect to the donation% In fact, the conditions imposed are the ver$ ob!i"ations of thedonation%+ the cort sho!d 87 the dration for the performance of the conditions4ob!i"ations in thedonation% (he mere fact that there is no time 87ed as to when the conditions of thedonation are to be f!8!!ed does not ipso facto mean that the statte of !imitations wi!! notapp!$ an$more and the action to revo@e the donation becomes imprescriptib!e%

QUIADA V CA)A'(IN3O; ecember ?, 199-

NATURECertiorari of CAs decision

FACTS+ Apri! =, 19=6+(rinidad iada , to"ether with her sib!in"s, donated a two+hectare !and tothe )nicipa!it$ of (a!aco"on, A"san de! Sr with the condidtion that the parce! of !andsha!! be sed S030 and 3C05SIM30 as part of the camps of the proposed provincia! hi"hschoo! of the said mnicipa!it$%+ (rinidad remained in possession of the !and despite the donation%+ J!$ :9, 196:+ (rinidad so!d one hectare of the said !and to 'e"a!ado )ondear &respondent*withot the bene8t of a deed of sa!e and evidenced on!$ b$ receipts of pa$ment%+ 19->+ the heirs of (rinidad &who at this time was dead a!read$* institted a comp!aint whichwas dismissed for fai!re to prosecte%+ 19-+ the proposed provincia! hi"h schoo! fai!ed to materia!i#e, the San""nian" Ba$an of the mnicipa!it$ enacted a reso!tion revertin" the two+hectare !and donated bac@ to thedonors%+ In the meantime, )ondear so!d portions of the !and to respondents, 2ernando Batista,'odo!fo Go!oran, 3fren Gden, and 3rnesto Go!oran%+ (he heirs of (rinidad 8!ed for this action &<ietin" of tit!e, recover$ of possession andownership of parce!s of !and with c!aim for attorne$s fees and dama"es%*+ Accordin" to the heirs, their mother (rinidad never so!d, conve$ed, transferred or disposedof the propert$ in <estion to an$ person or entit$ mch !ess to )ondear save the donationmade to the )nicipa!it$ of (a!aco"on%+ Since the !and sti!! be!on"ed to the mnicipa!it$ at the time of the a!!e"ed sa!e to )ondear,the spposed sa!e is n!! and void%+ )ondear c!aims that one hectare of the !and was so!d to him on J!$ :9, 196:, and theremainin" one+hectare on insta!!ment basis nti! f!!$ paid% As a defense, he c!aims that theaction is barred b$ 0AC3S or has prescribed%+ (C+ (rinidad had no !e"a! ri"ht to se!! the !and to )ondear since the ownership be!on"s tothe mnicipa!it$ and the deed of sa!e e7ected b$ (rinidad to )ondear did not carr$ with it

the conformit$ and ac<iescence of her chi!dren since she was a widow and 6. $rs o!d atthat time% So the respondents were as@ed to vacate the !and and restore the possession tothe heirs%+ CA+ reversed the decision of the (C; sa!e to )ondear was va!id as (rinidad retained aninchoate interest on the !ots b$ virte of the atomatic reversion c!ase in the deed of donation%

ISSUE



DN the sa!e of the !and to )ondear was va!id since the ownership of the said !andbe!on"ed to the mnicipa!it$ at the time of the sa!e b$ virte of the conditiona! deed of donation e7ected b$ (rinidad and her sib!in"s and DN the action is barred b$ !aches

HELD (he decision of the CA is phe!d; sa!e is va!id% No att$s fees awarded; No mora! dama"eswere !i@ewise awarded%Reasoning3n donation+ Dhen the )nicipa!it$s acceptance of the donation was made @nown to the donor, the)nicipa!it$ became the new owner of the donated propert$ + donation bein" a mode of ac<irin" and transmittin" ownership+ notwithstandin" the condition imposed b$ the donee%+ (he condition was that if the schoo! never materia!i#es or that it is opened bt discontinedor c!osed in the ftre, the propert$ sha!! revert to the donor%+ (he donation is perfected once the acceptance b$ the donee is made @nown to the donor%+ (he reso!tor$ condition is the constrction of the schoo!% It has been r!ed that when aperson donates !and to another on the condition that the !atter wo!d bi!d pon the !and aschoo!, the condition imposed is not a condtion precedent or a sspensive condition bt areso!tor$ one%+ At the time of the sa!es, (rinidad co!d not have so!d the !ots since the ownership had beentransferred b$ virte of the deed of donation% So !on" as the reso!tor$ condtion sbsistsand capab!e of f!8!!ment, the donation remains eHective and the donee contines to be theowner sbect on!$ to the ri"hts of the donor or his sccessors+in+interest nder the deed of donation%+ Since no period was imposed b$ the donor on when the mst the donee mst comp!$ withthe condition, the !atter remains the owner so !on" as he has tried to comp!$ with thecondition within a reasonab!e period% In this case, the )nicipa!it$ manifested in a reso!tionthat the$ cannot comp!$ with the condition of bi!din" a schoo! and the same was made@nown to the donor% (his was when the ownership reverted bac@ to (rinidad as provided inthe reversion c!ase of the deed of donation%+ (he donor ma$ have inchoate &meanin" imperfect* interest in the donated propert$ drin"the time that ownership of the !and has not reverted to her% Sch inchoate interest ma$ bethe sbect of contracts inc!din" a contract of sa!e% ere what the donor so!d was the !anditse!f which she no !on"er owned% It wo!d have been diHerent if what she so!d were herinterests over the propert$ nder the deed of donation which is sbect to the possibi!it$ of reversion of ownership arisin" from the non+f!8!!ment of the reso!tor$ condition%

3n laches+ (he petitioners action in N( 3( barred b$ !aches% It cannot be said that the petitionershad s!ept on their ri"hts for a!on" time since the$ initiated the action a $ear after pon@now!ed"e of the reversion of the propert$ to the donor%+ 0aches prespposes fai!re or ne"!ect for an nreasonab!e and ne7p!ained !en"th of time,to do that which, b$ e7ercisin" de di!i"ence, co!d have or sho!d have been done ear!ier; itis ne"!i"ence or omission to assert a ri"ht within a reasonab!e time, ths, "ivin" rise to a

presmption that the part$ entit!ed to assert it either has abandoned or dec!ined to assert it%- 4ssential elements5a% Condct on the part of the defendant, or of one nder whom he c!aims, "ivin" rise to thesitation comp!ained of;b% de!a$ in assertin" comp!ainants ri"ht after he had @now!ed"e of the defendants condctand after he has an opportnit$ to se;c% 0ac@ of @now!ed"e or notice on the part of the defendant that the comp!ainant wo!dassert the ri"ht on which he bases his sit;d% inr$ or predice to the defendant in the event re!ief is accorded to the comp!aint%



+ these e!ements are not present in this case

3n sale- Sa!e bein" a consensa! contract is perfected b$ mere consent which is manifested themoment there is a meetin" of the minds as to the oHer and acceptance thereof on .e!ements sbect matter, price and terms of pa$ment of the price%

+ wnership b$ the se!!er on the thin" so!d at the time of the perfection of the contract of sa!e is not an e!ement for its perfection% Perfection per se does not transfer ownership whichoccrs pon the acta! or constrctive de!iver$ of the thin" so!d%+ (he consmmation of the perfected contract is another matter% It occrs pon the acta! orconstrctive de!iver$ of the sbect matter to the b$er when the se!!er or her sccessors+in+interest sbse<ent!$ ac<ires ownership thereof%

LAO LIM V CA'3GA0A; ctober .1, 199>

NATUREPetition to review the decision of the Cort of Appea!s

FACTS+ $ entered into a contract of !ease with 0im foe a period of . $ears &196+199*% After thestip!ated term e7pired, $ refsed to vacate the premises, hence 0im 8!ed for an eectmentsit a"ainst $% (he case was terminated b$ a dicia!!$ approved compromise a"reement%+ (he compromise a"reement provides Ethat the term of !ease sha!! be renewed ever$ three$ears retroactin" from ct 199 / 19-:; after which the renta! sha!! be raised atomatica!!$b$ :> ever$ three $ears for as !on" as the defendant &* needed the premises and canmeet and pa$ the said increases, the defendant to "ive notice of his intent to renew 6> da$sbefore the e7piration of the term%F+ Apri! 1, 19-= / petitioner advised that he wo!d no !on"er renew the contract ctober19-=% n A"st =, 19-=, $ informed the petitioner in writin" of his intention to renew thecontract of !ease for another term% 0im advised that he did not a"ree to a renewa!%+ Janar$ 1=, 19-6 / 0im 8!ed another eectment sit which was dismissed on the "rondsthat &1* the !ease contract has not e7pired bein" a continos one the period whereof depended on pon the !essees need for the premises and his abi!it$ to pa$ rents and &:* thecompromise a"reement constittes res dicata%+ n appea!, the respondent cort armed the !ower corts d"ment in toto%

ISSUES1% DN the !ease contract on!$ depends on the part$s need for the premises and his abi!it$to pa$ the rents:% DN the compromise a"reement constitte res dicata

HELD1% Ratio (he !ease contract cannot be made to depend so!e!$ on the free and ncontro!!ed

choice of the !essee%

Reasoning+ (he stip!ation Efor as !on" as the defendant needed the premises and can meet and pa$

the said increasesF is pre!$ potestative% (he continance, eHectivit$ and f!8!!ment of a

contract of !ease cannot be made to depend e7c!sive!$ pon the free and ncontro!!ed

choice of the !essee between continin" pa$ment of the renta!s or not, deprivin" the owner

of an$ sa$ in the matter%

+ Dhere the instrment is ssceptib!e of two interpretations, the one which wi!! ma@e it va!id

and !e"a! sho!d be adopted%



:% Ratio (he second action for eectment does not constitte res dicata%

Reasoning

+ 2or a d"ment be a bar to a sbse<ent case, it mst be &1* a 8na! d"ment, &:* rendered

b$ a cort with risdiction over the sbect matter of the parties, &.* it mst be d"ment on

the merits, and &?* there mst be identit$ between the two cases as to parties, sbect

matter and case of action%+ (he forth is !ac@in" in the case at bar% (here is no identit$ of sbect matter and case of

action%

Disposition Dherefore, the decision of respondent Cort of Appea!s is reversed and setaside% Private respondent is hereb$ ordered to immediate!$ vacate and retrn the possessionof the !eased premises sbect of the present action to the petitioner and to pa$ the month!$renta!s de thereon in accordance with the compromise a"reement nti! he has acta!!$vacated the same%

NAGA TELEPHONE V COURT OF APPEALSNCN; 2ebrar$ :?, 199?

NATURE

P3(I(IN for a review of the decision of the CA%

FACTS+ Petitioner, Na"a (e!ephone Co%, Inc% &NA(30C*, is a te!ephone compan$ renderin" !oca! aswe!! as !on" distance te!ephone service in Na"a Cit$% n November 1, 19, it entered into acontract with Camarines Sr II 3!ectric Cooperative, Inc% &CAS5'3C II*, a corporationestab!ished for the prpose of operatin" an e!ectric power service in the same cit$, Efor these b$ the petitioner in the operation of its te!ephone service the e!ectric !i"ht posts of therespondentF% In consideration of sch se, NA(30C a"reed to provide the respondent withfree se of ten te!ephone connections%+ (he contract between inc!ded, amon" others, a stip!ation to the eHect that the contractsha!! Ebe as !on" as the part$ of the 8rst part &NA(30C* has need for the e!ectric post of thesecond part &CAS5'3C II* it bein" nderstood that this contract sha!! terminate when for

an$ reason whatsoever, the part$ of the second part is forced to stop, abandoned itsoperation as a pb!ic service and it becomes necessar$ to remove the e!ectric postF%+ After over ten $ears, the respondent 8!ed on Janar$ :, 19-9 with the '(C of Na"a Cit$action a"ainst the petitioner for reformation of the contract on the "ronds that it is too onesided in favor of the petitioner% (he action a!so pra$ed that petitioner be ordered to pa$ forthe se of e!ectric posts which are not covered b$ the a"reement% And 8na!!$, thatCAS5'3C be indemni8ed no !ess than P1>>,>>> arisin" ot of the poor servicin" of the tente!ephone nits which had cased it "reat inconvenience and dama"es%+ (he tria! cort fond in favor of the respondents and ordered the reformation of thecontract in the interest of stice and e<it$% As part of the r!in", the cort orderedNA(30C to pa$ respondent a month!$ renta! of P1>%>> per e!ectric post bein" sed from thetime of the 8!in" of the case% n the other and, CAS5'3C was ordered b$ the same tria!cort to pa$ NA(30C for the se and transfers of its te!ephone nits at the same rate that

the pb!ic are pa$in"%+ Appea! to the CA was made and the CA armed the r!in" of the tria! cort bt this timenot based on the reformation bt rather on the operation of Artic!e 1:6 of the Civi! Codeand on the potestative condition with rendered the condition void%+ (he CA he!d that as reformation on!$ !ie or ma$ prosper when the contract fai!ed to e7pressthe tre intentions of the parties de to error or mista@e, accident , or frad and there is noa!!e"ation to this eHect, the proper basis is the aforementioned Artic!e%+ (he section on the contined se of the e!ectric post for so !on" as these are needed b$NA(30C was considered as bein" pre!$ potestative on the part of the petitioner as it



!eaves the contined eHectivit$ of the contract to NA(30Cs so!e and e7c!sive wi!!% As he!din previos risprdence, there mst be mta!it$ and e<a!it$ in an$ contract%+ ence the appea!%

ISSUEDN the r!in" of the CA is va!id

HELD es% (he a"reement between the parties has become too one sided in favor of the petitionerto the "reat disadvanta"e of the respondent% Continin" with the a"reement wi!! res!t inthe petitioners nst enrichment at the e7pense of the respondent%

OSME!A V RAMA JNSN; September 9, 19>9

NATUREAPP3A0 from a d"ment of the Cort of 2irst Instance of Ceb%

FACTS+1= Nov 1-9> oQa 'ama e7ected and de!ivered to Mictoriano smeQa a contract &3IBI(A* which stated that she received P:>> in cash from on smeQa which she wo!d pa$ ins"ar in Janar$42ebrar$ the ne7t $ear at the price on the da$ of de!iverin" the s"ar intothe ons warehoses R Interest w4 rate of ha!f a carti!!o per month on each peso from Nov1= to the da$ of the sett!ement; if ever the oQa co!d not pa$ in f!!, a ba!ance sha!! bestrc@, showin" the amont otstandin" at the end of each Jne, inc!din" interest, andotstandin" ba!ance of the respondent wo!d be considered as capita! which the respondentwo!d pa$ in s"ar% (he respondent a!so promised that she wo!d se!! to on smeQa a!! hers"ar that wo!d be harvested, and as secrit$, she p!ed"ed a!! her present and ftrepropert$, and as a specia! secrit$, she wo!d "ive her hose in Pa"ina% (he contract wassi"ned b$ : witnesses%+: ct% 1-91 efendant as@ed a frther !oan from the on of P>, P=> of which wo!d be!oaned to on PeQares, and the P> wo!d be paid in s"ar%+Some time after the e7ection and de!iver$ of the above contracts, on smeQa died% Inthe sett!ement and division of the propert$ of his estate the above contracts became thepropert$ of one of his hieirs, A"stina 'afo!s% 0ater&no date "iven* the said A"stina 'afo!sceded to the present p!aintiH a!! of her ri"ht and interest in said contracts%+& m$ cop$ is missin" some para"raphs, cant 8nd a cop$ in the internet so st !oo@ at $orcopies for the periods between the death of on smeQa and )arch 1=*+1= )arch 19>: oQa 'ama reco"ni#ed her ob!i"ations in the said contract with onsmeQa, statin" in the contract she e7ected &3IBI( C* that if her hose in Pa"ina wo!dbe so!d she wo!d se the mone$ to pa$ for her debts%+:6 Jne 19>6 oQa (omasa did not pa$ the amont de so the p!aintiH commenced thisaction in C2I Ceb%C(, deci d"ment in favor of the p!aintiH and a"ainst the defendant for the sm of P:>>with interest at the rate of 1- .4? per cent per annm, from the 1=th da$ of November,1-9>, and for the sm of P:>, with interest at the rate of 1-1 per cent per annm, from the

:th da$ of ctober, 1-91, nti! the said sms were paid%Plainti06s Claim the e7ection and de!iver$ of the above contracts, the demand for pa$ment,and the fai!re to pa$ on the part of the defendant, and the pra$er for a d"ment for theamont de on the said contracts% &own testimon$ / I dont @now if A"stina is a "$ / m$cop$ said Ethe p!aintiH himse!fF*!efendant6s defense "enera! denia! and settin" p the specia! defense of prescription% &noevidence presented*

ISSUE



DN the proof presented drin" the tria! in C2I is scient for the !ower cort to reco"ni#ethe debt of oQa 'ama, provided that she imposed the condition that she wo!d pa$ herdebts pon se!!in" her hose

HELD 3S, the proof presented is scient%

Ratio A condition imposed pon a contract b$ the promisor, the performance of whichdepends pon his e7c!sive wi!!, is void, in accordance with the provisions of artic!e 111= of the Civi! Code%Reasoning It was s""ested drin" the discssion of the case in this cort that, in theac@now!ed"ment of the indebtedness made b$ the defendant, she imposed the conditionthat she wo!d pa$ the ob!i"ation if she so!d her hose% If that statement fond in herac@now!ed"ment of the indebtedness sho!d be re"arded as a condition, it was a conditionwhich depended pon her e7c!sive wi!!, and is, therefore, void% &Art% 111=, Civi! Code%* (heac@now!ed"ment, therefore, was an abso!te ac@now!ed"ment of the ob!i"ation and wasscient to prevent the statte of !imitation from barrin" the action pon the ori"ina!contract%Disposition De are satis8ed, from a!! of the evidence addced drin" the tria!, that the

d"ment of the !ower cort sho!d be armed% So ordered%

TAYLOR V UY TIENG PIAO AND TAN LIUANS('33(; ctober :, 19::

NATUREAppea! from a d"ment of C2I of )ani!aFACTS+ (a$!or contracted his services to (an 0ian Co as sperintendent of an oi! factor$ whichthe !atter contemp!ated estab!ishin"+ (he contract e7tended over : $ears and the sa!ar$ was P6>>4month drin" the 8rst $earand P>>4month drin" the second with e!ectric, !i"ht and water for domestic consmptionor in !ie thereof, P6>4month+ At this time, the machiner$ for contemp!ated factor$ had not been ac<ired, tho"h tene7pe!!ers had been ordered from the 5S+ It was nderstood that sho!d the machiner$ to be insta!!ed fai!, for an$ reason, to arrive in)ani!a within the period of 6 months, the contract ma$ be cance!!ed b$ the part$ of thesecond part at its option, sch cance!!ation not to occr before the e7piration of sch 6months+ (he machiner$ did not arrive in )ani!a within the 6 months; the reason does not appear,bt a preponderance of evidence show that the defendants seein" that oi! bsiness no!on"er promised !ar"e retrns, either cance!!ed the order for machiner$ from choice or werenab!e to spp!$ the capita! necessar$ to 8nance the proect%+ efendants commnicated to (a$!or that the$ had decided to rescind the contract%+ (a$!or institted this action to recover dama"es in the amont of P1.@, coverin" sa!ar$ andper@s de and to become de

ISSUEDN in a contract for the prestation of service, it is !awf! for the parties to insert aprovision "ivin" the emp!o$er the power to cance! the contract in contin"enc$ which ma$ bedominated b$ himse!f

HELD 3S%+ ne of the conse<ences of the stip!ation was that the emp!o$ers were !eft in a positionwhere the$ co!d dominate the contin"enc$, and the res!t was abot the same as if the$



had been "iven an n<a!i8ed option to dispense with the services of (a$!or at the end of 6months% Bt this circmstance does not ma@e the stip!ation i!!e"a!%+ A condition at once fac!tative and reso!tor$ ma$ be va!id even tho"h the condition ismade to depend pon the wi!! of the ob!i"or%+ If it were apparent, or co!d be demonstrated that the defendants were nder positiveob!i"ation to case the machiner$ to arrive in )ani!a, the$ wo!d of corse be !iab!e, in the

absence of armative proof showin" that the non+arriva! of the machiner$ was de to somecase not havin" its ori"in in their own act or wi!!%+ (he contract, however, e7presses no sch positive ob!i"ation, and its e7istence cannot beimp!ied in the face of the stip!ation, de8nin" the conditions nder which the defendants cancance! the contract%+ C2I no error in reectin" (a$!ors c!aim in so far as dama"es are so"ht for the periodsbse<ent to the e7piration of 6 months, bt in assessin" the dama"es de for the si7+month period, the tria! d"e over!oo@ed the item of P6> &commtation of hose rent* (hisamont (a$!or is entit!ed to recover in addition to P.>> awarded b$ C2I%

ROMERO V CAMI(5G; November :., 199=

FACTS+Petitioner Mir"i!io '% 'omero, his forei"n partners decided to pt p a centra! warehose in)etro )ani!a on a !and area of appro7imate!$ :,>>> s<are meters%+(he proect was made @nown to severa! free!ance rea! estate bro@ers%+A da$ or so after the annoncement, A!fonso 2!ores and his wife oHered a parce! of !andmeasrin" 1,9=: s<are meters !ocated in Baran"a$ San ionisio, ParaQa<e, )etro )ani!a,the !ot was in the name of private respondent 3nri<eta Cha vda% de n"sion"%+Petitioner visited the propert$ and, e7cept for the presence of s<atters in the area, hefond the p!ace sitab!e for a centra! warehose%+2!ores sposes ca!!ed on petitioner with a proposa! that sho!d he advance the amont of P=>,>>>%>> which co!d be sed in ta@in" p an eectment case a"ainst the s<atters,private respondent wo!d a"ree to se!! the propert$ for on!$ P->> >> per s<are meter% /+Petitioner e7pressed his concrrence% n >9 Jne 19--, a contract denominated Teed of Conditiona! Sa!e,T was e7ected between petitioner and private respondent%with thefo!!owin" terms and conditionsT1% (hat the sm of 2I2( (5SAN P3SS &P=>,>>>%>>* N0 Phi!ippine Crrenc$, is to bepaid pon si"nin" and e7ection of this instrment%T:% (he ba!ance of the prchase price in the amont of N3 )I00IN 2IM3 5N'3 303M3N

(5SAN SI 5N'3 P3SS &P1,=11,6>>%>>* N0 sha!! be paid ?= da$s after theremova! of a!! s<atters from the above described propert$%T.% 5pon f!! pa$ment of the overa!! prchase price as aforesaid, M3N' withot necessit$of demand sha!! immediate!$ si"n, e7ecte, ac@now!ed"ed &sic* and de!iver thecorrespondin" deed of abso!te sa!e in favor of the M3N33 free from a!! !iens andencmbrances and a!! 'ea! 3state ta7es are a!! paid and pdated%?%(hat if after 6> da$s from the date of the si"nin" of this contract the M3N' sha!! not beab!e to remove the s<atters from the propert$ bein" prchased, the downpa$ment made

b$ the b$er sha!! be retrned 4reimbrsed b$ the M3N' to the M3N33%=%(hat in the event that the M3N33 sha!! not be ab!e to pa$ the M3N' the ba!ance of theprchase price of N3 )I00IN 2IM3 5N'3 303M3N (5SAN SI 5N'3 P3SS&P1,=11,6>>%>>* N0 after ?= da$s from written noti8cation to the M3N33 of the remova!of the s<atters from the propert$ bein" prchased, the 2I2( (5SAN P3SS &P=>,>>>,>>* previos!$ paid as downpa$ment sha!! be forfeited in favor of the M3N'%6%37penses for the re"istration sch as re"istration fees, docmentar$ stamp, transfer fee,assrances and sch other fees and e7penses as ma$ be necessar$ to transfer the tit!e to



the name of the M3N33 sha!! be for the accont of the M3N33 whi!e capita! "ains ta7 sha!!be paid b$ the M3N'%+ A!fonso 2!ores, in beha!f of private respondent, forthwith received and ac@now!ed"ed achec@ for P=>,>>> >>: from petitioner%+Private respondent 8!ed a comp!aint for eectment &Civi! Case No% =9* a"ainst )e!chor)sa and :9 other s<atter fami!ies with the )etropo!itan (ria! Cort of ParaQa<e%

+A few months !ater, or on :1 2ebrar$ 19-9, d"ment was rendered orderin" thedefendants to vacate the premises% (he decision was handed down be$ond the 6>+da$period &e7pirin" >9 A"st 19--* stip!ated in the contract% (he writ of e7ection of the

d"ment was issed, sti!! !ater, on .> )arch 19-9%+In a !etter, dated > Apri! 19-9, private respondent so"ht to retrn the P=>,>>>%>> shereceived from petitioner since, she said, she co!d not T"et rid of the s<attersT on the !ot%Att$% Ser"io A% 2% Aposto!, conse! for petitioner, in his rep!$ of 1 Apri! 19-9, refsed thetender and statedT3ur client believes that &ith the eercise of reasonable diligence considering the favorabledecision rendered b* the Court and the &rit of eecution issued pursuant thereto) it is no&

possible to e'ect the suatters from the premises of the sub'ect propert*) for &hich reason)he proposes that he shall take it upon himself to e'ect the suatters) provided) that epenses &hich shall be incurred b* reason thereof shall be chargeable to the purchase

price of the land%

ISSUEDN the vendor ma$ demand the rescission of a contract for the sa!e of a parce! of !and fora case traceab!e to his own fai!re to have the s<atters on the sbect propert$ evictedwithin the contracta!!$ stip!ated period

HELDN% Private respondentUs fai!re Tto remove the s<atters from the propert$T within thestip!ated period "ives petitioner the ri"ht to either refse to proceed with the a"reement orwaive that condition in consonance with Artic!e 1=?= of the Civi! Code%T (his option c!ear!$be!on"s to petitioner and not to private respondent%+(he nderta@in" re<ired of private respondent does not constitte a Tpotestative conditiondependent so!e!$ on his wi!!T that mi"ht, otherwise, be void in accordance with Artic!e 11-:of the Civi! Codebt a Tmi7edT condition Tdependent not on the wi!! of the vendor a!one bta!so of third persons !i@e the s<atters and "overnment a"encies and personne! concerned%T%Dhere the so+ca!!ed Tpotestative conditionT is imposed not on the birth of the ob!i"ation bton its f!8!!ment, on!$ the condition is avoided, !eavin" naHected the ob!i"ation itse!f%+In contracts of sa!e partic!ar!$, Artic!e 1=?= of the Civi! Code, aforementioned, a!!ows theob!i"ee to choose between proceedin" with the a"reement or waivin" the performance of the condition% Petitioner has waived the performance of the condition imposed on privaterespondent to free the propert$ from s<atters%+Private respondentUs action for rescission is not warranted% She is not the inred part$% (heri"ht of reso!tion of a part$ to an ob!i"ation nder Artic!e 1191 of the Civi! Code ispredicated on a breach of faith b$ the other part$ that vio!ates the reciprocit$ betweenthem% It is private respondent who has fai!ed in her ob!i"ation nder the contract% Petitionerdid not breach the a"reement% e has a"reed, in fact, to sho!der the e7penses of the

e7ection of the d"ment in the eectment case and to ma@e arran"ements with the sheriH to eHect sch e7ection% In his !etter of :. Jne 19-9, conse! for petitioner has tenderedpa$ment and demanded forthwith the e7ection of the deed of abso!te sa!e%Parenthetica!!$, this oHer to pa$, havin" been made prior to the demand for rescission,assmin" for the sa@e of ar"ment that sch a demand is proper nder Artic!e 1=9::. of theCivi! Code, wo!d !i@ewise sce to defeat private respondentUs prero"ative to rescindtherender%



ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCH"ISHOP OF MANILA V# CA'3GA0A; Jne 19, 1991

NATURE

Petition for review on certiorari to overtrn the decision of the Cort of Appea!s

FACTS+ n A"st :., 19.>, the sposes 3sebio de Castro and )artina 'ieta, now both deceased,e7ected a deed of donation in favor of therein defendant 'oman Catho!ic Archbishop of )ani!a coverin" a parce! of !and at Vawit, Cavite containin" an area of 96? s<% meters+(he deed of donation provides that the donee sha!! not dispose or se!! the propert$ within aperiod of one hndred &1>>* $ears from the e7ection of the deed of donation, otherwise avio!ation of sch condition wo!d render ipso facto n!! and void the deed of donation andthe propert$ wo!d revert to the estate of the donors%+n or abot Jne .>, 19->, and whi!e sti!! within the prohibitive period to dispose of thepropert$, petitioner 'oman Catho!ic Bishop of Ims, in whose administration a!! propertieswithin the province of Cavite owned b$ the Archdiocese of )ani!a was a!!e"ed!$ transferredon Apri! :6, 196:, e7ected a deed of abso!te sa!e of the propert$ sbect of the donationin favor of petitioners 2!orencio and So!edad I"nao in consideration of the sm of P11?,>>>%>>%+n November :9, 19-?, private respondents as p!aintiHs, 8!ed a comp!aint for n!!i8cationof deed of donation, rescission of contract and reconvo$ance of rea! propert$ with dama"esa"ainst petitioners 2!orencio and So!edad C% I"nao and the 'oman Catho!ic Bishop of Ims,Cavite, to"ether with the 'oman Catho!ic Archbishop of )ani!a+n ecember 1, 19-?, petitioners 2!orencio I"nao and So!edad C% I"nao 8!ed a motion todismiss based on the "ronds that &1* herein private respondents, as p!aintiHs therein, haveno !e"a! capacit$ to se; and &:* the comp!aint states no case of action%+n ecember 19, 19-?, petitioner 'oman Catho!ic Bishop of Ims a!so 8!ed a motion todismiss on three &.* "ronds, the 8rst two &:* "ronds of which were identica! to that of themotion to dismiss 8!ed b$ the I"nao sposes, and the third "rond bein" that the case of action has prescribed%+n Janar$ 9, 19-=, the 'oman Catho!ic Archbishop of )ani!a !i@ewise 8!ed a motion todismiss on the "rond that he is not a rea! part$ in interest and, therefore, the comp!aintdoes not state a case of action a"ainst him%+(ria! Cort dismissed the case on the "rond that the action has prescribed+CA reversed, and remanded the case; )2's 8!ed separate!$ b$ the sposes I"nao and the'C Bishop of Ims were denied

ISSUES1% DN the action has a!read$ prescribed:% DN the private respondent has a case of action a"ainst petitioners

HELD1. No% It is the contention of petitioners that the case of action of herein private

respondents has a!read$ prescribed, invo@in" Artic!e 6? of the Civi! Code which providesthat TDhen donation sha!! be revo@ed at the instance of the donor, when the donee fai!s tocomp!$ with an$ of the conditions which the former imposed pon the !atter,T and that Thisaction sha!! prescribe after for $ears from the non+comp!iance with the condition, ma$ betransmitted to the heirs of the donor, and ma$ be e7ercised a"ainst the doneeUs heirs%TReasoning+Said provision does not app!$ in the case at bar% (he deed of donation invo!ved hereine7press!$ provides for atomatic reversion of the propert$ donated in case of vio!ation of thecondition therein, hence a dicia! dec!aration revo@in" the same is not necessar$



+ A dicia! action for rescission of a contract is not necessar$ where the contract providesthat it ma$ be revo@ed and cance!!ed for vio!ation of an$ of its terms and conditions+(he aforesaid r!e app!$ to contracts, bt we see no reason wh$ the same sho!d not beapp!ied to the donation in the present case+Artic!e .: of the Civi! Code provides that donations inter vivos sha!! be "overned b$ the"enera! provisions on contracts and ob!i"ations in a!! that is not determined in (it!e III, Boo@

III on donations%+Now, said (it!e III does not have an e7p!icit provision on the matter of a donation with areso!tor$ condition and which is sbect to an e7press provision that the same sha!! beconsidered ipso facto revo@ed pon the breach of said reso!tor$ condition imposed in thedeed therefor, as is the case of the deed present!$ in <estion% (he spp!etor$ app!ication of the fore"oin" doctrina! r!in" to the present controvers$ is conse<ent!$ sti8ed+ Dhen a deed of donation, as in this case, e7press!$ provides for atomatic revocation andreversion of the propert$ donated, the r!es on contract and the "enera! r!es onprescription sho!d app!$, and not Artic!e 6? of the Civi! Code%+(he case of action of herein private respondents has not $et prescribed since an action toenforce a written contract prescribes in ten &1>* $ears%+Artic!e 6? was intended to provide a dicia! remed$ in case of non+f!8!!ment orcontravention of conditions speci8ed in the deed of donation if and when the parties havenot a"reed on the atomatic revocation of sch donation pon the occrrence of thecontin"enc$ contemp!ated therein% (hat is not the sitation in the case at bar+(he action 8!ed b$ private respondents ma$ not be dismissed b$ reason of prescription

:% No% (he case of action of private respondents is based on the a!!e"ed breach b$petitioners of the reso!tor$ condition in the deed of donation that the propert$ donatedsho!d not be so!d within a period of one hndred &1>>* $ears from the date of e7ection of the deed of donation% Said condition, in or opinion, constittes an nde restriction on theri"hts arisin" from ownership of petitioners and is, therefore, contrar$ to pb!ic po!ic$%

+onation, as a mode of ac<irin" ownership, res!ts in an eHective transfer of tit!e over the

propert$ from the donor to the donee% nce a donation is accepted, the donee becomes theabso!te owner of the propert$ donated% A!tho"h the donor ma$ impose certain conditionsin the deed of donation, the same mst not be contrar$ to !aw, mora!s, "ood cstoms, pb!icorder and pb!ic po!ic$% (he condition imposed in the deed of donation in the case before sconstittes a patent!$ nreasonab!e and nde restriction on the ri"ht of the donee todispose of the propert$ donated, which ri"ht is an indispensab!e attribte of ownership% Scha prohibition a"ainst a!ienation, in order to be va!id, mst not be perpeta! or for annreasonab!e period of time

+In the case at bar, we ho!d that the prohibition in the deed of donation a"ainst thea!ienation of the propert$ for an entire centr$, bein" an nreasonab!e emasc!ation anddenia! of an inte"ra! attribte of ownership, sho!d be dec!ared as an i!!e"a! or impossib!econdition within the contemp!ation of Artic!e : of the Civi! Code% Conse<ent!$, as

speci8ca!!$ stated in said stattor$ provision, sch condition sha!! be considered as notimposed% No re!iance ma$ accordin"!$ be p!aced on said prohibitor$ para"raph in the deedof donation

+(he va!idit$ of sch prohibitor$ provision in the deed of donation was not speci8ca!!$ pt inisse in the p!eadin"s of the parties% (hat ma$ be tre, bt sch oversi"ht or inaction doesnot prevent this Cort from passin" pon and reso!vin" the same



!isposition D3'32'3, the d"ment of respondent cort is S3( ASI3 and another d"ment is hereb$ rendered IS)ISSING Civi! Case No% >9=+-? of the 'e"iona! (ria! Cort,Branch , Ims, Cavite

cj tan cases

Documents