Anda di halaman 1dari 2

City of Angeles vs.

Court of Appeals Facts:

Timog Silangan Devt. Corporation donated 5% of the gross area of its mediumdensity subdivision in favor of City of Angeles. This donation is pursuant to PD 1216 which requires the subdivision developer to donate a portion of its subdivision to the city or municipality where it is located. This donated property is to be devoted for non-buildable open spaces (parks, playgrounds) for the benefit of the public, and outside the commerce of men. Under PD 1216, Timog Silangan is obliged to donate 7% of its property to City of Angeles since its subdivision is considered as medium-density. In the Deed of Donation, Timog Silangan imposed the condition that the city government should construct a sports complex thereon. Failure to observe this condition will cause the donor to revoke said donation and recover the donated property with its improvements thereon. City of Angeles constructed a drug rehabilitation facility instead. So, Timog Silangan sued for revocation of the donation. According to the City of Angeles, since the donor is mandated by law to donate a portion of its subdivision to the city or municipality concerned, it has no right to impose the condition to construct a sports complex thereon. It cannot prescribe any condition as to the use of the area donated because the use of the open spaces is already governed by PD 1216. Therefore, said condition is deemed not written.

Issue 1: Can the donor impose conditions on the said donation? Held: YES, because the general law on donations does not prohibit the imposition of conditions on a donation so long as the conditions are not illegal or impossible. Conditions may be imposed so long as they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. Also, the special law involved does not provide that donations made by the subdivision in favor of the city or municipality should be unconditional. Issue 2: Was the condition imposed valid? Held: No, the condition was not valid. Timog Silangan was mandated by PD 1216 to donate 7% of its subdivision to the city government to be designated as non-buildable open spaces (for parks and playgrounds), but it only donated 5% of its area. As there is actually a deficiency in the area donated, the whole property should be reserved for said parks and playgrounds; the sports complex cannot be constructed thereon. Said sports complex could only be built if Timog Silangan donated more than 7% of its gross area to the city government. So, the donation is valid and subsisting, except for the condition to construct a sports complex on the donated land. The condition was considered void.

(The SC ordered the demolition of the drug rehabilitation facility and to devote such property for parks, playgrounds or other recreational use.) Issue 3: Can Timog Silangan revoke the donation for the breach committed by City of Angeles? Held: No. Timog Silangan and the City of Angeles are considered in pari delicto because: * Timog Silangan donated less than that required by law, and for agreeing to construct a sports complex on such non-buildable area; and *City of Angeles constructed a drug rehabilitation center on such non-buildable area. Since the condition to construct a sports complex on the donated land is contrary to law (see Issue 2), revokation of the donation and the recovery of the property cannot be done because: *there was no valid stipulation that was breached; and *the donated property was considered by PD 1216 as property beyond the commerce of men and property of public dominion.