Title
C-J Yulo and Sons Inc. vs. Roman Catholic Bishop of San Pablo Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 133705
Decision Date
Mar 31, 2005
Donee leased donated land without donor's consent; donor sought revocation. Court upheld donation, ruling breaches casual and aligned with donation’s purpose.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133705)

Factual Background

On September 24, 1977, petitioner executed a deed of donation conveying a 41,117-square-meter parcel in Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna to respondent, a religious corporation, and the title under TCT No. T-82803 in petitioner’s name was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. T-91348 in respondent’s name. The deed expressly required that so much of the land as necessary be used to construct and maintain a home for the aged and infirm, ordained a fifteen-meter green belt, allowed residual land to be used for agricultural support of the home or, with the donor’s written consent, for commercial leases whose rentals were to be applied first to the home’s expenses, and prohibited use other than as provided without prior written consent of the donor, on pain of reversion in trust. Beginning about 1980 the donee leased portions of the property three times to third persons—first to Martin Gomez for sugar cane, then to Jose Bostre for a ranch, and later to Rudy Caballes for cattle fattening—each lease having been entered into without the donor’s prior written consent and each, according to the donee, intended to generate funds for construction and protection of the nucleus building called Casa dela Merced.

Donor’s Revocation and Commencement of Suit

On September 20, 1990, petitioner, by board resolution and through its president, notified respondent of revocation of the donation on account of material breaches of the deed’s conditions and demanded turnover of TCT No. T-91348. Respondent denied material breach by letter dated November 5, 1990 and refused to reconvey title. Thereafter petitioner filed an action in the RTC, Calamba, Laguna on November 19, 1990 praying for judicial revocation of the deed of donation and reconveyance of the property.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

Respondent answered alleging efforts to comply with the deed’s purposes, asserting that the leases had the express though unwritten consent of a member of the donor family and pleading that any right of revocation had prescribed because the donor knew of the leases since 1980. On December 22, 1995, the trial court found for petitioner, declared the deed of donation revoked, affirmed the donor’s revocation letter dated September 20, 1990, ordered the defendant and those claiming under it to vacate and to surrender possession, directed cancellation of TCT No. T-91348 and issuance of a new title in favor of petitioner, with costs against respondent.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals. In its Decision dated December 19, 1997 the appellate court reversed the trial court and upheld the donation. The Court of Appeals concluded that the donation was onerous and therefore governed by the rules on contracts under Article 733; it agreed that respondent had entered leases without the donor’s prior written consent and that such acts were breaches of the deed, but it characterized those breaches as casual and not substantial. The Court of Appeals held that the leases did not detract from the donation’s purpose of establishing a home for the aged and infirm and therefore did not justify rescission under Article 1191. The Court of Appeals also accepted the trial court’s view that prescription would be ten years under Article 1144 rather than four years under Article 764, but found the action timely in any event. The CA denied reconsideration in its April 30, 1998 Resolution.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Petitioner’s sole submission to this Court was that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the revocation was improper and that the donations should nonetheless be revoked despite respondent’s breaches of the deed’s conditions.

Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

Petitioner relied on authorities such as Central Philippine University vs. Court of Appeals to argue that prolonged failure to perform the burden of the donation justified revocation. Respondent maintained that the leases were undertaken to generate funds for the construction and maintenance of the home for the aged, that the deeds of lease were therefore in furtherance of the donation’s purpose, and that any lack of prior written consent was at most a technical or casual breach. Respondent also argued that the bishop’s communications seeking authority to sell or exchange the property reflected concern for preserving the donation’s purpose in the face of proposed industrialization, rather than abandonment.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto. The Court made no pronouncement as to costs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the deed created an onerous donation because it imposed a reciprocal obligation on the donee to establish and operate a home for the aged and infirm. Pursuant to Article 733, the Court held that the law on contracts controls the rights and obligations of the parties in an onerous donation. The Court explained that rescission of a contract for breach requires a substantial breach that defeats the primary purpose of the agreement as contemplated by Article 1191 and established jurisprudence. The Court relied on its decision in Republic vs. Silim, which recognized that an exchange of donated property, or other acts that further the donation’s purpose, do not necessarily violate the condition attached to a donation. Applying that principle, the Court found that the three leases at issue were entered into to generate funds and to protect and develop Casa dela Merced and thus furthered, rather than defeated, the donation’s objective. The Court held that the absence of the donor’s prior written consent rendered the leases technical breaches only; such casual breaches did not justify rescission because they did not substantially impair th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.