Case Digest (G.R. No. 133705)
Facts:
C‑J Yulo & Sons, Inc. v. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Pablo, Inc., G.R. No. 133705, March 31, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner C‑J Yulo & Sons, Inc. (the donor) executed a deed of donation dated September 24, 1977, conveying a 41,117‑square‑meter parcel in Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna to respondent Roman Catholic Bishop of San Pablo, Inc. (the donee). The deed recited that the land was donated to establish and support a home for the aged and infirm and contained express conditions: the land was to be used for that home (with a 15‑meter green belt), portions not needed for the residence and green belt were to be used for agricultural purposes (or, with the donor’s written consent, for commercial leases whose proceeds would support the home), and absent prior written consent of the donor the donee was not to use, sell, convey or dispose of the land; breach would cause reversion in trust to the donor.TCT No. T‑82803 in the donor’s name was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. T‑91348 in the donee’s name. Beginning about 1980 the donee, without obtaining the donor’s prior written consent, entered into a series of leases of portions of the donated land: first to Martin Gomez (sugarcane) (lease terminated 1985), then to Jose Bostre (ranching/electrification/maintenance of nucleus building), and later to Rudy Caballes (cattle fattening). The donee explained the leases were to generate funds for perimeter fencing and construction/operation of a nucleus building called Casa dela Merced.
By letter dated September 20, 1990, the donor’s board, through its president, declared revocation of the donation for material breach and demanded turnover of TCT No. T‑91348. The donee denied material breach and refused to surrender the title. On November 19, 1990 the donor filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calamba, Laguna a complaint for revocation of donation with reconveyance, alleging (a) failure to construct the home within a reasonable time, (b) current use as a cattle farm under lease, and (c) absence of the donor’s prior written consent for the leases.
In its answer the donee asserted it was complying with the deed’s purposes, claimed the leases had the donor’s express (though unwritten) consent, and pleaded prescription as the leases were known to donor since 1980. On December 22, 1995 the RTC (Branch 34) rendered judgment for the donor, declaring the deed revoked, ordering vacation and turnover of the premises and cancellation of TCT No. T‑91348.
The donee appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CV No. 45392). In a decision dated December 19, 1997 the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and upheld the donation, holding the donation was onerous and that the donee’s breaches (leasing without prior written consent) were casual and did not defeat the purpose of establishing the home; the CA also agreed that the donor’s right to revoke was governed by a ten‑year prescriptive period under Article 1144 of the Civil Code and thus the action was not time‑barred. The CA denied the donor’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 30, 1998.
Petitioner sought...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner’s action for revocation of the donation barred by prescription?
- Was the donation validly revoked for the donee’s breaches of the deed’s conditions (in particular, leasing portions of the land without the donor’s prior w...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)