GR L 15434; (October, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15434; October 31, 1960
DIONISIO NAGRAMPA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
In 1937, plaintiffs-appellants Dionisio Nagrampa and Tecla Collada executed a notarial instrument entitled “Onerous donation inter vivos” in favor of defendant-appellee Julia Margate Nagrampa and her husband Pablo Sadang. The donation was made in consideration of love and affection and for services rendered and to be rendered by the donees. The donees accepted the donation. On July 21, 1958, the plaintiffs filed a complaint to revoke the donation, alleging that the defendant, in violation of the conditions, had failed to render them “financial, physical and all kinds of services.” The complaint stated that “five years ago” (around 1953) the plaintiffs demanded such services, which the defendant refused and continues to refuse to render. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription, citing Article 764 of the Civil Code, which fixes a four-year period for filing actions to revoke donations. The Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur sustained the motion and dismissed the case.
ISSUE
Whether the action to revoke the donation on the ground of non-compliance with its conditions has prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action has prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The donation was unequivocally a donation inter vivos, as indicated by its title, its contemplation of immediate transfer of ownership, the donees’ acceptance, and its provision for registration. Such donations are governed by the provisions on donations, and under Article 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, actions for revocation of a donation by reason of non-compliance with its conditions prescribe after four years from such non-compliance. The complaint itself alleged that the defendant refused to render the required services more than five years (since 1953) before the suit was filed in July 1958. Therefore, the action had prescribed. The Court applied Article 1116 of the Civil Code, noting that although the donation was executed in 1937 under prior laws, the entire four-year prescriptive period under the present Code had elapsed since its effectivity in 1950, given that the alleged violation occurred in 1953 and the suit was filed in 1958. Consequently, the present Code’s prescriptive period applied to bar the action. The appealed order was affirmed.