G.R. No. 57455 - De Luna vs. Abrigo

On January 24, 1965, Prudencio de Luna donated 7,500 sqm of Lot No. 3707 (T-5775) to Luzonian Colleges, Inc. (now Luzonian University Foundation, Inc.) by Deed of Donation Intervivos subject to conditions and automatic reversion upon breach.
The deed provided that violation or non-compliance with specified conditions would cause immediate reversion to the donor without further formalities.

On April 9, 1971, Prudencio de Luna executed a “Revival of Donation Intervivos” in favor of the foundation, imposing burdens:

Construct a chapel, nursery and kindergarten school per approved plans (70% finished within 3 years; fully within 5 years).
Automatic reversion clause (pars. 11) for any violation, effective without judicial act.

The foundation accepted the revival subject to all terms; the donation was annotated on T-5775 and subsequently segregated into Lot No. 3707-B (title T-16152) on August 3, 1971. The donor retained Lot No. 3707-A.

Prudencio de Luna died on August 18, 1980. His heirs (petitioners) filed on September 23, 1980 Civil Case No. 8624 in the RTC of Quezon, praying for cancellation of the donation and reversion of Lot 3707-B due to non-compliance.
The foundation answered, asserting partial compliance, an indefinite extension, and pleaded the four-year prescriptive period under Article 764 of the Civil Code.

During pretrial, the foundation’s motion to dismiss on prescription grounds was granted by Order dated July 7, 1981, holding that revocation requires either judicial decree or donee’s subsequent consent, and that the action (filed beyond April 9, 1980) was barred by the four-year period of Article 764.
No motion for reconsideration was filed; petitioners elevated the case by certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Whether the trial court erred in ruling that revocation of the donation requires either a judicial decree or donee’s consent given after effectivity or breach.
Whether the suit is governed by the four-year prescriptive period for judicial revocation of donations (Art. 764, Civil Code) or by the ten-year period for enforcing written contracts (Art. 1144, Civil Code).
Whether the trial court should have rendered judgment on the pleadings instead of dismissing the complaint outright.