Case Summary (G.R. No. 220008)
Procedural History: RTC and CA Rulings
The RTC dismissed the revocation suit as premature for failing to request the fixing of a compliance period under Art. 1197. On reconsideration, it held that without a prayed-for period the condition could not be enforced. The CA affirmed, adding that Petitioner lacked capacity as an heir until the decedent’s estate was settled and co-heirs were determined.
Issues on Review
A. Whether an heir must first settle the estate or determine co-heirs before filing revocation of donation.
B. Whether non-joinder of co-heirs mandates dismissal.
C. Whether the action is premature or barred by prescription or laches.
Nature of the Donation and Right to Revoke
The Court classified the 1963 deed as a donation subject to a resolutory condition: (1) construct a government hospital; (2) use the land solely as a hospital site. Under Civil Code Art. 764, failure to comply allows revocation and reconveyance. Mere foundation work did not satisfy the condition, nor did leaving the site idle constitute its intended use.
Joinder and Co-ownership
Pursuant to Civil Code Art. 487 and settled jurisprudence, any one co-owner may bring a possessory or recovery action for the benefit of all. An heir’s right is inchoate but Article 493 allows an heir to exercise acts of ownership, including reconveyance suits, without prior estate settlement or impleading all co-heirs when relief benefits the co-ownership.
Prescription and Laches
No specific period was set in the Deed. Under Art. 1197 the Court could have fixed one, but over fifty years had lapsed, rendering any “reasonable period” expired. Prescription could not run when the compliance period was indeterminate; when plainly no hospital would ever be built, the cause of action matured. Laches likewise did not bar the suit, as DP
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 220008)
Nature of the Petition
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
- Challenges:
• 17 October 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 91522
• 14 August 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals - Subject matter: Complaint and Amended Complaint for revocation of donation, reconveyance and recovery of possession filed by Socorro T. Clemente (substituted by Salvador T. Clemente) against the Republic of the Philippines (DPWH Region IV-A)
Facts of the Case
- Original owners: Amado A. Clemente, Vicente A. Clemente, Ramon A. Clemente, Milagros A. Clemente
- Deed of Donation dated 16 March 1963:
• Parcel of land (1 hectare) donated “solely for hospital site only”
• Unconditional donation with resolutory condition to construct a government hospital
• Accepted by DPWH Region IV-A in the same instrument - Title transfer: Partial cancellation of TCT No. T-50896 and issuance of TCT No. T-51745 in name of Province of Quezon
- Performance to date: Only foundation of hospital built; construction never completed
- 2003 correspondence: Socorro and co-heir inquire; DPWH disclaims any plan or budget for hospital
- 2004 action: Socorro (as heir of Mayor Clemente) files Complaint and Amended Complaint for revocation of donation, reconveyance and recovery of possession
Procedural History
- Regional Trial Court, Mauban, Quezon, Branch 64
• Decision dated 24 September 2007 – Dismissed action as premature for lack of a fixed period of compliance under Art. 1197 (no prayer for period fixing)
• Resolution dated 4 April 2008 – Denied motion for reconsideration; affirmed dismissal - Court of Appeals
• Decision dated 17 October 2014 – Denied appeal on ground of prematurity and petitioner’s failure to settle co-donors’ estate before asserting heirship
• Resolution dated 14 August 2015 – Denied motion for partial reconsideration - Supreme Court: Petition under Rule 45
Issues Presented
- Whether the settlement of the co-owners’ estate or determination of heirs, liquidation of estate and paym