GR 164748; (January, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 164748 ; January 27, 2006
THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION and DR. BENITO TUMAMAO, Schools Division Superintendent of Isabela, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF RUFINO DULAY, SR., represented by IGNACIA VICENTE, RUFINO DULAY, JR., SUSANA DULAY, ADELAIDA DULAY, LUZVIMINDA DULAY and CECILIA DULAY, Respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Rufino Dulay, Sr. and Ignacia Vicente donated a 10,000-square-meter parcel of land to the Ministry of Education (now DECS) via a 1981 deed. The deed explicitly stated the donation was made “for and in consideration of the benefits that may be derived from the use of the above described property which is intended for school purposes.” Title was transferred to the DECS in 1983. However, the property remained idle and unused for any school purpose. In 1988, the DECS constructed the intended Rizal National High School on a different parcel of land located two kilometers away. After the donor’s death, his heirs demanded the property’s return and, upon refusal, filed a complaint for revocation of donation and reconveyance.
ISSUE
Whether the donation may be revoked due to the donee’s non-compliance with the condition to use the property for school purposes.
RULING
Yes, the donation is revocable. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, ruling the donation was subject to a resolutory condition. The legal logic is anchored on Article 764 of the Civil Code, which allows for the revocation of a donation by the donor for non-compliance with conditions imposed in the contract. The deed’s language clearly established that the conveyance was made in consideration of the property’s use for school purposes, making this use a binding condition. The DECS’s failure to utilize the land for any school-related activity for over 16 years constituted a clear breach. The Court rejected the DECS’s defenses, including an unsubstantiated claim of using the land as a laboratory and an alleged subsequent purchase by the barangay, as these were contradicted by the ocular inspection showing the land remained barren. The Court also held that the action had not prescribed, as the period for compliance was not fixed and the right to revoke accrued only after a reasonable time for performance had lapsed, which the DECS had clearly been given and had wasted. Consequently, the donation was properly revoked, and the DECS was ordered to reconvey the property to the donors’ heirs.