G.R. No. 24190 , July 13, 1926
GEORGE L. PARKS, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, MUNICIPALITY OF TARLAC, CONCEPCION CIRER, and JAMES HILL, her husband, defendants-appellees.

Ponente: AVANCEÑA, C.J.

FACTS

On October 18, 1910, Concepcion Cirer and James Hill donated a parcel of land to the Municipality of Tarlac under the conditions that it be used for a central school and a public park, with construction to commence within six months from the ratification of the deed. The donation was accepted by the municipal president on behalf of the municipality, and the land was subsequently registered in the municipality’s name. On January 15, 1921, Cirer and Hill sold the same land to George L. Parks. Later, on August 24, 1923, the Municipality of Tarlac transferred the land to the Province of Tarlac, which obtained a new certificate of title in its name. Parks filed an action seeking to be declared the absolute owner, to annul the transfer to the province, and to cancel the province’s title, arguing that the conditions of the donation had not been complied with and that he acquired rights through the sale from the original donors.

ISSUE

1. Whether the plaintiff, George L. Parks, acquired any right to the land through the sale executed by the donors after the donation had been made and accepted.
2. Whether the condition in the donation was a condition precedent, such that the donation never took effect due to non-compliance.
3. Whether the action for revocation of the donation due to non-compliance with the conditions had already prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint.

1. No Right Acquired by Plaintiff: The donation, having been accepted by the Municipality of Tarlac, transferred ownership to the municipality. At the time of the sale to Parks in 1921, the donors (Cirer and Hill) were no longer the owners of the land. Therefore, they could not validly sell it to Parks, and Parks acquired no rights from that sale. Even if grounds for revocation existed, the donation could only be revoked either by the donee’s consent or by judicial decree, neither of which occurred before the sale.

2. Condition Was Not Precedent: The condition to build a school and a park within six months was not a condition precedent. A condition precedent suspends the acquisition of a right until it is fulfilled. Here, the condition could only be performed *after* the donation had taken effect, as the donee needed to have ownership to lawfully commence construction on the land. Thus, the donation was effective upon acceptance, and the condition was a subsequent condition, the breach of which could be a cause for revocation.

3. Action for Revocation Had Prescribed: The action for revocation of a donation for non-compliance with conditions is subject to prescription. As no special period is provided for such action under the Civil Code, the general prescriptive period of ten years under the Code of Civil Procedure applies. The cause of action accrued on April 19, 1911 (six months after the donation’s ratification, when the condition was breached). The complaint was filed only on July 5, 1924, more than ten years later. Hence, the right to seek revocation had already prescribed.

DISPOSITIVE:
Judgment affirmed. Costs against appellant.