Roman Catholic of Manila et al, Sps. Ignao vs CA, Estate of Sps Castro.

G.R. No. 77425/50

6/19/1991

Facts:
 On August 23, 1930, Sps. Castro, both deceased, executed a deed of donation in favor of the Archbishop of Manila
for a parcel of land in Kawit, Cavite. Said deed provides that the done shall not dispose/sell said land within 100
years from execution of said deed, otherwise it would void the contract and revert to the Castros.
 To add, while still in the 100 year prohibitive period, the Bishop of Imus, who was the administrator of all properties
within Cavite owned by the Archdiocese of Manila was allegedly transferred, executed a deed of absolute sale in
favor of Sps. Ignao for P114,000 hence a TCT was registered in their name.
 Based on CA records, Ignaos moved to dismiss the complaint of the Castros (nullification of deed of donation,
rescission of contract, reconveyance and damages) due 1) Castro’s had no legal capacity and 2) lack of cause of
action. This was seconded by the Bishop of Imus in a separate motion to dismiss due 1) first two grounds set forth by
the Ignaos and that the cause of action had already prescribed. The Archbishop of Manila filed the same that he is
not the real party in interest thus no cause of action is established.
 The Castros opposed but the Ignaos countered this as well. The trial court dismissed the complaint as it had already
been prescribed. The Castros appealed to the CA. It held that the action had not yet prescribed and that the case be
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. The Ignaos and the Bishop of Imus filed their own MRs but
were denied hence this case.
 They argue that the cause of action had already prescribed. They invoke NCC 764 which states that “the donation
shall be revoked at the instance of the donor, when the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions which the
former imposed upon the latter," and that "this action shall prescribe after four years from the non-compliance with
the condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be exercised against the donee's heirs.

Issue: Whether the cause of action had already prescribed – NO

Ruling:
 Though NCC 764 provides an action for revocation of donation must be brought within 4 years from the non-
compliance in the conditions set in the donation, this is inapplicable in this case.
 The deed of donation clearly provides for automatic reversion of the donated property in case a violation had
occurred hence a judicial declaration is unnecessary.
 NCC 732 provides that donations shall be governed by the general provisions of the contract and obligations is not
determined in Title III Book III on donations.
 Title III does not have explicit provisions on matters of donation with a resolutory condition and w/c is subject to an
express provision that the same shall be considered revoked upon breach of such condition, hence NCC 764 cannot
apply. NCC 1306 authorizes parties to set conditions as long as not contrary to law. The SC affirmed the CA in holding
that the cause of action had not yet prescribed since an action to enforce a written contract prescribes in 10 years.
 SC held that NCC 764’s purpose is to provide a remedy in case of non-compliance in the donation if and when have
not agreed on the automatic revocation which is not in this case.
 Though the action filed by the Castros may not be dismissed due to prescription, it should be dismissed as the
Castros had no cause of action against the Ignaos and the Church.
 The condition set, SC opined, constitutes undue restriction on the rights arising from ownership of the Ignaos thus
was contrary to public policy. The condition was unreasonable. The moment a donation is accepted, the done is the
absolute owner as long as the condition set are within the bounds of law and/or public policy. (Impossible condition)
 SC held that the prohibition in the deed against the alienation of the property for 100 years is illegal as
contemplated in NCC 727.
 WHEREFORE, the judgment of respondent court is SET ASIDE and another judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING
Civil Case No. 095-84 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch XX, Imus, Cavite.