Case Digest: Parks vs Province of Tarlac, 49 Phil 142

Parks vs Province of Tarlac, 49 Phil 142

Subject: Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

On Oct. 18, 1910, Cirer & Hill donated their land (Land No. 2) perpetually to the Municipality of Tarlac w/certain conditions stipulated in a public document. Conditions were: 1) it will be used absolutely & exclusively for the erection of a central school & public park and 2) work will commence6mos from the date of the ratification of the document. Donation was accepted by Mr. De Jesus, municipal president. Land was registered in the name of the municipality.

On Jan. 15, 1921, Cirer & Hill sold the same parcel of land to Parks.

On Aug. 24, 1923, the municipality transferred ownership of the land to the province of Tarlac.

Parks filed this case claiming that he was the lawful owner of the land. According to him, the municipality failed to comply w/the conditions thus, Cirer & Hill sold the land to him. He prayed for the annulment of the transfer of ownership.

Lower court dismissed Parks’ complaint.

ISSUE/S:

1. WON Parks has a right of action.

2. WON the conditions in the donation were conditions precedent (suspensive).

3. WON non-compliance w/condition subsequent (resolutory) would be sufficient cause to revoke the donation.

RULING

1. NO. Although the donation might have been revoked, such was not done when Cirer & Hill sold the land to Parks. Revocation should either be consented to by the done (municipality) or be judicially decreed. When the spouses sold the land, they were no longer the owners of said land.

2. NO. Condition Precedent: acquisition of the right is not effected while said condition is not complied with or is not deemed complied with. A condition is not suspensive when compliance of w/c cannot be effected except when the right is deemed acquired. In this case, donation was already in effect since the conditions could only be complied with after giving effect to the donation. Otherwise, it would have been an invasion of another’s property (donor). If the conditions were suspensive, the donor would have continued to be the owner so long as the condition imposed was not complied with.

3. YES. However, period for bringing the action has already prescribed by: 

(a) Revocation by subsequent birth of children: 5 years as per Art. 646; 

(b) revocation by reason of ingratitude: 1 years; 

(c) Non-compliance of conditions of donation (considered as onerous thud there’s no special period as per Art 647, law of contracts and general rules of prescription governs: 10 years per Code of Giv. Procedure, Sec. 43). In this case, cause of action arose on April19, 1911 (6mos after Oct. 18, 1910, or when the donation was made as per the condition that work should begin w/in 6mos after documents’ ratified. 

Case was filed on July 5, 1924, w/c is more than 10 years after the cause accrued. Petition was denied and decision of lower court was affirmed.