Title
Province of Camarines Sur vs. Bodega Glassware
Case
G.R. No. 194199
Decision Date
Mar 22, 2017
A land donation to CASTEA was revoked due to lease violations; the Supreme Court upheld the revocation, ruled Bodega's possession unlawful, and ordered eviction with compensation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194199)

Key Dates

• Donation executed: September 28, 1966
• Lease to Bodega: September 1, 1995 (20-year term)
• First legal demand: July 2005
• Final demand and revocation deed: October 4 & 14, 2007
• Unlawful detainer filed: March 13, 2008
• MTC decision: December 11, 2008
• RTC reversal: May 13, 2009
• CA affirmation: May 31, 2010; Reconsideration denied October 12, 2010
• SC decision: March 22, 2017

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (judicial power, due process)
• Civil Code of the Philippines (Arts. 428, 732, 764, 1144, 1147, 1306)
• Rules of Court: Rule 45 (certiorari), Rule 70 (unlawful detainer)
• Jurisprudence on automatic revocation (De Luna v. Abrigo; University of the Philippines v. De los Angeles; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. CA; Dolar; Zamboanga Barter)

Factual Background

The Province donated 600 sq.m. to CASTEA in 1966 with three conditions—including exclusive use for association offices, prohibition against sale or encumbrance, and commencement of construction within one year—plus an automatic revocation clause. CASTEA complied initially but breached by leasing the land to Bodega in 1995.

Procedural History

After informal tolerance of Bodega’s occupancy, the Province formally demanded vacation in October 2007 and revoked the donation under the automatic clause. It filed unlawful detainer in March 2008. The MTC ruled for the Province (Dec. 2008), the RTC reversed (May 2009), and the CA affirmed the RTC (May 2010). The Province then secured SC review under Rule 45.

Issue

Which party holds the rightful de facto possession: the Province as donor asserting automatic reversion upon condition breach, or Bodega as lessee under an unauthorized lease?

Automatic Revocation Clause

Under Article 1306 and settled jurisprudence, an automatic revocation or rescission clause in an onerous donation takes effect immediately upon breach, without judicial declaration, though the donee may later challenge its propriety. CASTEA’s lease breached two conditions, triggering automatic reversion of title and ownership to the Province.

Prescription of Actions

Article 764’s four-year period to annul a donation does not apply where revocation is self-executing. No ten-year reconveyance action is required. The sole pertinent prescriptive period for ejectment is one year from last demand under Rule 70, Sec. 1. The Province filed within four months.

Right to Possession in Unlawful Detainer

An unlawful detainer action addresses only actual possession. Having validly considered the donation revoked a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.