G.R. No. 125728 ; August 28, 2001
MARIA ALVAREZ VDA. DE DELGADO, et al., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Carlos Delgado donated a 165,000-square-meter parcel of land to the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1936 via a Deed of Donation containing an express resolutory condition. The condition stipulated that the land was for exclusive use as a military reservation, and should the Commonwealth no longer need it for military purposes, the property would automatically revert to the donor or his heirs. The Commonwealth took possession, built military improvements, and subsequently applied for registration. The land, consolidated with other donated parcels, was registered as Lot No. 1 under Original Certificate of Title No. 2539 in 1939 in the name of the Commonwealth. The title initially annotated the donation condition. However, the total area of Lot No. 1 (216,907 sq. m.) exceeded the sum of the donated parcels by 33,607 sq. m., an excess allegedly sourced from the donor’s adjoining properties. Upon the Commonwealth’s dissolution in 1946, the Republic of the Philippines succeeded to the property and eventually allowed its use for non-military purposes, such as an airport, provincial capitol, and hospital.
The heirs of Jose Delgado (brother and heir of Carlos) filed an action for reconveyance in 1989 before the RTC. They argued that the Republic’s non-military use violated the donation’s condition, triggering automatic reversion. Alternatively, they contended that the donation itself became inoperative upon the Commonwealth’s dissolution. They also sought recovery of the 33,607 sq. m. excess area included in the title.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners’ action for reconveyance of the donated property, based on alleged violation of the donation condition and/or the inclusion of an excess area in the title, has prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that the action for reconveyance had prescribed. On the main claim concerning the violation of the donation condition, the Court applied the ten-year prescriptive period for actions upon a written contract under Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code. The right of action accrued from the moment the donee breached the resolutory condition by using the property for non-military purposes. The Republic’s non-military use began long before 1989, as portions were used for an airport and other civilian purposes after 1946. The petitioners filed their suit only in 1989, well beyond the ten-year prescriptive period, thus barring their claim.
Regarding the claim for the 33,607 sq. m. excess area, the Court treated the erroneous registration as giving rise to a constructive trust in favor of the true owners. However, an action for reconveyance based on such an implied trust also prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title. The title was issued in 1939, and the petitioners were deemed constructively aware of the inclusion of the excess area from that date. Their action filed decades later in 1989 was likewise barred by prescription. Consequently, all causes of action had been extinguished by prescription in favor of the Republic.