Central Philippines University v. CA

7/27/2019 Central Philippines University v. CA

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/central-philippines-university-v-ca 1/16

Central Philippines Unive

v. CA

[G.R. No. 112127 July 17, 1995]CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY, petitioner, vs.COURT OF APPEALSFRANCO, FRANCISCO N. LOPEZ, CECILIA P. VDA. DE LOPEZ, REDAREMARENE LOPEZ, respondents.

Group 1

Presenter: Joyce Baylon

Members:Carl AuJoyce BaylonLanz OlivesJimuel Matias



FACTS OF THE CASE

In 1939, the late Don Ramon Lopez Sr., a member of the Board of TrusteesPhilippines University (CPU), executed a deed of donation in favor of CPU land, together with the following conditions:

1. The land described shall be utilized by the CPU exclusively for thestablishment and use of a medical college with all its buildingscurriculum;

2. The said college shall not sell, transfer or convey to any third paway encumber said land;

3. The said land shall be called "RAMON LOPEZ CAMPUS", and theshall be under obligation to erect a cornerstone bearing that n

income from the land or any of its parks shall be put in a fund tothe "RAMON LOPEZ CAMPUS FUND" to be used for improvemencampus and erection of a building thereon.

On May 31, 1989, Remedios Franco, Francisco N. Lopez, Cecilia P. Vda. DLopez And Remarene Lopez (Lopez et.al) who are the heirs of Don Ramonfor annulment of donation, reconveyance & damages against CPU for nowith the conditions. The heirs also argued that CPU had negotiated with texchange the donated property with another land owned by the latter.



ISSUE/S:

Whether or not the donation shou

revoked for non-compliance of theconditions



ARGUMENTS

LOPEZ ET.AL.

Since 1939 up to the time the actionwas filed CPU had not complied withthe conditions of the donation.

In fact CPU negotiated with theNational Housing Authority (NHA) toexchange the donated property with

another land owned by CPU.

CPU

The right of Lopez et.aaction had prescribed;

CPU did not violate anyconditions in the deed because it never used property for any other p

that for which it was intthat it did not sell, transto any third party.



DECISION

Yes. The donation should be revoked due to non-compliance conditions.

A clear perusal of the conditions set forth in the deed of donation exRamon Lopez, Sr., gives us no alternative but to conclude that hisonerous, one executed for a valuable consideration which is cequivalent of the donation itself, e.g., when a donation impoequivalent to the value of the donation.

PRESCRIPTION CANNOT RUN: The condition imposed by the donor, i.of a medical school upon the land donated, depended upon the e

the donee as to when this condition shall be fulfilled. When CPU donation, it bound itself to comply with the condition thereof. Since which the condition should be fulfilled depended upon the excluspetitioner, it has been held that its absolute acceptance and the acof its obligation provided in the deed of donation were sufficient statute of limitations from barring the action of private respondents upcontract which was the deed of donation.



OBLICON NOTE:

GENERAL RULE: When the obligation does not fix a period but from its natucircumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended, the general Art. 1197 of the Civil Code applies, which provides that the courts may fix thereof because the fulfillment of the obligation itself cannot be demandthe court has fixed the period for compliance therewith and such period

This general rule cannot be applied considering the different set of circumexisting in the instant case. More than a reasonable period of fifty (50) yeabeen allowed petitioner to avail of the opportunity to comply with the cobe burdensome, to make the donation in its favor forever valid. But, unforfailed to do so.

Under Art. 1191 of the Civil Code, when one of the obligors cannot comply

incumbent upon him, the obligee may seek rescission and the court shall same unless there is just cause authorizing the fixing of a period. In the ab just cause for the court to determine the period of the compliance, there iobstacle for the court to decree the rescission claimed.

CPU has slept on its obligation for an unreasonable length of time. Hence,and equitable to declare the subject donation already ineffective and, forevoked.



Relevant Provision

Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the instance of thethe donee fails to comply with any of the conditions whic

imposed upon the latter.

In this case, the property donated shall be returned to thalienations made by the donee and the mortgages imposehim being void, with the limitations established, with regard to by the Mortgage Law and the Land Registration Laws.

This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncomplia

condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, exercised against the donee's heirs.



DAVIDE JR., DISSENTING OPINION:

The donation is, indeed, onerous due to the conditions imposedonor on the donee which created reciprocal obligations upo

parties.

There is an inconsistency in the majority opinion's description ofdonation in question. In one part, it says that the donation in quis onerous; and in the latter part, it stated that it is gratuitous.

The discussion on conditional obligations is unnecessary (obiter"conditions" imposed by the donor and as the word is used in t

donations is confused with "conditions" as used in the law of obword "conditions" in Art. 764 does not refer to uncertain events birth or extinguishment of a juridical relation depends, but is usevulgar sense of obligations or charges imposed by the donor oIt is used, not in its technical or strict legal sense, but in its broad(Tolentino)




When the law and the deed of donation speaks of "conditionsdonation, what are referred to are actually the obligations, cha

burdens imposed by the donor upon the donee and which woucharacterize the donation as onerous. In the present case, the quite obviously, onerous, but it is more properly called a "moda

A modal donation is one in which the donor i

a prestation upon the donee. The establishmemedical college as the condition of the dona

the present case is one such prestation.




The conditions imposed by the donor Don Ramon Lopez determines nexistence nor the extinguishment of the obligations of the donor and

with respect to the donation. The conditions imposed by Don Ramon Lopez upon the donee are the

obligations of the donation — to build the medical college and use ththe purposes specified in the deed of donation. It is very clear that thoare unconditional, the fulfillment, performance, existence or extinguishwhich is not dependent on any future or uncertain event or past and event, as the Civil Code would define a conditional obligation.

The majority opinion states that the conditions are resolutory becausecomplied with, the rights of the donee as such will be extinguished andonation will be revoked.

It is more accurate to state that the conditions are not resolutory condare the obligations imposed by the donor.




(Art. 1197) The conditions/obligations imposed by Don Ramon are subperiod. From the nature and circumstances of the conditions/obligatio

present donation, it can be inferred that a period was contemplated Don Ramon Lopez could not have intended his property to remain idlperiod of time when in fact, he specifically burdened the donee with to set up a medical college therein and thus put his property to goodneed to fix the duration of the time within which the conditions imposefulfilled.

It is also important to fix the duration or period for the performance of conditions/obligations in the donation in resolving the petitioner's claimprescription has already barred the present action.



Relevant Provision

Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the instance of thethe donee fails to comply with any of the conditions whic

imposed upon the latter.

In this case, the property donated shall be returned to thalienations made by the donee and the mortgages imposehim being void, with the limitations established, with regard to by the Mortgage Law and the Land Registration Laws.

This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncomplia

condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, exercised against the donee's heirs.



QUESTION:

What is a modal donation?



ANSWER:

A modal donation is one in which t

donor imposes a prestation upon thdonee.



QUESTION:

What is the rule when a donee

comply with any of the conditimposed by the donor on th

donation?



ANSWER:

Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the instadonor, when the donee fails to comply with a

conditions which the former imposed upon the lattIn this case, the property donated shall be returndonor, the alienations made by the doneemortgages imposed thereon by him being voidlimitations established, with regard to third persoMortgage Law and the Land Registration Laws.

This action shall prescribe after four years noncompliance with the condition, may be tranthe heirs of the donor, and may be exercised adonee's heirs.

Documents

Central Philippines University v. CA