Case Digest (G.R. No. 194199)
Facts:
Province of Camarines Sur, represented by Governor Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, Jr., v. Bodega Glassware, represented by its owner Joseph D. Cabral, G.R. No. 194199, March 22, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, Province of Camarines Sur, owned a parcel of land in Peñafrancia, Naga City (OCT No. 22). On September 28, 1966 then-Governor Apolonio G. Maleniza executed a Deed of Donation in favor of the Camarines Sur Teachers' Association, Inc. (CASTEA), conveying about 600 square meters. The deed contained an automatic revocation clause conditioning the donation on specified uses (construction and use of a building for CASTEA and related associations), a prohibition on sale/mortgage/incumbrance, and commencement of construction within one year, failing which "this donation shall be deemed automatically revoked and voided."
CASTEA accepted the donation and initially complied with formalities. On August 15, 1995, however, CASTEA entered into a 20-year Contract of Lease with Bodega Glassware (commencing September 1, 1995), and Bodega took actual possession and built on the property. In July 2005 the provincial legal officer queried Bodega for proof of title or legal basis for possession; Bodega produced none. Petitioner tolerated Bodega’s possession for several years but on October 4, 2007 (letter dated November 11, 2007) demanded that Bodega vacate, asserting that its occupation was by mere tolerance.
On October 14, 2007, petitioner executed a Deed of Revocation, invoking the automatic revocation clause and asserting that CASTEA’s lease to Bodega breached the conditions. CASTEA did not appear to contest that revocation. Petitioner then filed an action for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Naga City on March 13, 2008, seeking possession and PHP15,000 per month from October 2007 until vacation.
The MTC ruled for petitioner (Decision, December 11, 2008), ordering Bodega to vacate and to pay PHP15,000 monthly as reasonable compensation. On appeal the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Naga City reversed (Decision, May 13, 2009), dismissing the case for plaintiff’s failure to present evidence. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC (assailed Decision, May 31, 2010), holding that petitioner should have fi...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Who has the right to actual physical possession of the subject property—petitioner or respondent Bodega Glassware?
- Does an automatic revocation clause in a deed of donation effect immediate revocation without prior judicial declaration, or must the donor first obtain a court reconveyance?
- Was petitioner’s ejectment acti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)