GR 220008; (February, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 220008 . February 20, 2019.
SOCORRO T. CLEMENTE, as substituted by SALVADOR T. CLEMENTE, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (Department of Public Works and Highways, Region IV-A), Respondent.
FACTS
The Clemente siblings donated a one-hectare parcel of land to the Republic of the Philippines through a Deed of Donation dated March 16, 1963. The donation was expressly conditioned on the use of the property “solely for hospital site only and for no other else, where a Government Hospital shall be constructed.” The donee, through the DPWH, accepted the donation and began construction of a hospital building the following year. However, the construction was never completed, leaving only the foundation.
In 2003, petitioner Socorro T. Clemente, as heir of one of the donors, inquired with the DPWH regarding the hospital’s development. The DPWH informed her it no longer had plans or a budget to construct the hospital. Consequently, in 2004, Socorro filed a Complaint for Revocation of Donation, Reconveyance and Recovery of Possession, arguing the donee failed to comply with the resolutory condition of the donation.
ISSUE
Whether the action for revocation of the donation on the ground of non-compliance with the condition to build a hospital has prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action has prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, but on the ground of prescription, differing from the lower courts’ reasoning on prematurity and heirship. The Court applied Article 764 of the Civil Code, which governs revocation of donations for non-compliance with conditions. This action prescribes in four years from the time of non-compliance.
The Court ruled that the obligation to construct the hospital was a positive suspensive condition. Non-compliance occurred not when the DPWH formally abandoned the project in 2003, but at the point it became indubitable that the condition would not be fulfilled. The construction started in 1964 but was soon abandoned, with only a foundation remaining. The donors and their heirs were aware of this prolonged state of non-completion for decades. The Court held that the four-year prescriptive period began to run from the time the donors or their heirs could have reasonably ascertained the donee’s failure to perform, which was years, even decades, before the suit was filed in 2004. By waiting approximately 40 years to initiate the action, the petitioner allowed the prescriptive period to lapse. Thus, the right to seek revocation was already extinguished.