Title
Clemente vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 220008
Decision Date
Feb 20, 2019
Donation of land for a government hospital revoked after 50+ years due to non-compliance with condition; heirs regain ownership.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 50661)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Procedural Background
    • Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Socorro T. Clemente (substituted by Salvador T. Clemente) against the Republic of the Philippines through DPWH Region IV-A.
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 of Mauban, Quezon, which dismissed Socorro’s Complaint and Amended Complaint for revocation of donation, reconveyance, and recovery of possession on grounds of prematurity and non-joinder of co-heirs.
  • The Subject Donation and Subsequent Events
    • On 16 March 1963, the Clemente siblings (Amado, Vicente, Ramon, Milagros) executed a Deed of Donation “unconditional” over a one-hectare parcel (Subject Property) in favor of the Republic, “solely for hospital site only and for no other else,” to be constructed and used as a government hospital.
    • Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-50896 was partially cancelled and reissued as T-51745 under the Province of Quezon. Construction of the hospital began in 1964, but only the foundation was completed and later abandoned.
    • In August and November 2003, Socorro inquired with DPWH about the unfinished hospital; DPWH replied it had no plans or budget to complete construction.
    • In 2004, Socorro, as co-heir of one donor, filed Complaint and Amended Complaint for revocation of donation, reconveyance, and recovery of possession, alleging non-compliance with the condition to build and use the site as a government hospital.

Issues:

  • Heirship and Estate Settlement
    • Whether settlement of the estate or judicial determination of heirs, full liquidation, and payment of estate debts is necessary before Socorro, as sole surviving spouse of a co-owner, may institute the revocation action.
  • Joinder of Co-heirs
    • Whether failure of other co-heirs to join in the action requires its dismissal, despite the suit being for the collective benefit of all co-heirs under remedies for recovery of possession and ownership.
  • Prematurity, Prescription, and Laches
    • Whether the action is premature or barred by prescription or laches, considering the donation is onerous, governed by obligations and contracts (Art. 733, Civil Code), and the applicable prescriptive period under Arts. 764 and 1144 of the Civil Code.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.