Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15434)
Facts:
- In Nagrampa v. Nagrampa, G.R. No. L-15434, decided on October 31, 1960, plaintiffs Dionisio Nagrampa and Tecla Collada sought to revoke a 1937 donation to defendants Julia Margate Nagrampa and Pablo Sadang.
- The donation, titled "Onerous donation inter vivos," included real properties and was made in consideration of love, affection, and services rendered and to be rendered by the donees.
- The donation was formalized in a notarial instrument and accepted by the donees.
- On July 21, 1958, the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that Julia Margate Nagrampa failed to comply with the conditions of the donation, specifically the provision of "financial, physical and all kinds of services."
- The defendant moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the action was barred by prescription under Article 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which sets a four-year prescriptive period for actions to revoke donations due to non-compliance with conditions.
- The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur sustained the motion and dismissed the case.
- The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the prescriptive period should be ten years under the law on contracts.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- Yes, the action for the revocation of the donation is barred by prescription under Article 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
- No, the prescriptive period for the revoca...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the action for the revocation of the donation was barred by prescription.
- The Court explained that the donation was an onerous donation inter vivos, governed by the general provisions concerning contracts and obligations in all matters not specifically determined by the title on donations.
- Under Article 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, actions for the revocation of such donations due to non-compliance with conditions prescribe after four years from the time of non-compliance.
- The plaintiffs' complaint, filed in 1958, alleged non-compliance that occurred more than five years prior, thus exceeding the four-year prescriptive period.
- The Court noted that although no special period ...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15434)
Facts:
In the case of Nagrampa v. Nagrampa, G.R. No. L-15434, decided on October 31, 1960, the plaintiffs, Dionisio Nagrampa and Tecla Collada, sought to revoke a donation made in 1937 to the defendants, Julia Margate Nagrampa and her husband, Pablo Sadang. The donation, titled "Onerous donation inter vivos," included real properties and was made in consideration of love, affection, and services rendered and to be rendered by the donees. The donation was formalized in a notarial instrument and was accepted by the donees. On July 21, 1958, the plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that the defendant, Julia Margate Nagrampa, had failed to comply with the conditions of the donation, specifically the provision of "financial, physical and all kinds of services." The defendant moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the action was barred by prescription under Article 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which sets a four-year prescriptive period for actions to revoke donations due to non-compliance with conditions. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur sustained the motion and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed the decision, arguing that the prescriptive period should be ten years under the law on contracts.
Issue:
- Is the action for the revocation of the donation barred by pres...