Case Digest (G.R. No. 152663)
Facts:
Edgardo D. Dolar v. Barangay Lublub (now P.D. Monfort North) of the Municipality of Dumangas, G.R. No. 152663, November 18, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Edgardo D. Dolar and Serafin Jaranilla were co-owners of a 4.6-hectare parcel (Lot No. 1, Pcs-06-000744) in Brgy. Lublub, Dumangas, Iloilo. On September 16, 1981 they executed a deed of donation in favor of Barangay Lublub, accepted by then barangay captain Jose Militar; the donation contained express conditions (use for public plaza/market/health centers/sports complex, completion within five years, and an automatic reversion clause should the barangay convert the use or fail to comply).
Following the donation, the barangay took possession and the property became the site of government and public-service structures, but the barangay did not register the donation. On April 12, 1989 the Registry of Deeds of Iloilo issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129837 to petitioner. In June 1989 petitioner executed a second deed of donation of the same area to the barangay, containing the same conditions.
Years later the mother lots were listed as tax delinquent and sold at public auction; petitioner was the winning bidder. On May 6, 1998 petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) at Iloilo City a complaint for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession with Damages against Barangay Lublub and several occupants of the donated lot (PLDT, Dumangas Water District, PNP mobile force, and a branch of the RTC), docketed as Civil Case No. 98-033. Petitioner alleged the donation had ceased to be effective because the barangay failed to comply with the conditions and thus ownership reverted to him.
The barangay answered with a counterclaim (denying noncompliance and alleging compliance through construction of public-service facilities), and raised affirmative defenses and a motion to dismiss arguing lack of cause of action and prescription under Article 764 of the Civil Code (and that revocation must be sought in court). The barangay later, now as Barangay P.D. Monfort North, filed its own complaint (Civil Case No. 00-140) for Cancellation of Title, Reconveyance/Issuance of Title and Declaration of Nullity of Notice of Delinquency, accusing the Dolars of engineering the tax levy and title issuance.
Petitioner moved to dismiss Civil Case No. 00-140 for forum shopping and litis pendentia; the two cases were consolidated. In an Order dated January 3, 2002 the RTC (Branch 38) granted the barangay's built-in motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 98-033, concluding that petitioner’s action to revoke the donation had prescribed un...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court correctly treat petitioner’s Civil Case No. 98-033 as an action to revoke the donation (subject to Article 764) and dismiss it as prescribed?
- Was the deed of donation invalid for defective acceptance by the barangay captain?
- Did the automatic reversion clause in the deed operate to revest ownership in petitioner without judicial action?
- Could respondent barangay acquire title to the property by acquisitive ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)