G.R. No. 3148

Parties:
Plaintiff-Appellee: Enrique Maria Barretto
Defendant-Appellant: The Municipal Board of Manila

FACTS:
This case concerns a donation of a lot by Enrique Maria Barretto to the Municipal Board of Manila. The donation was made with specific conditions: (a) no building was to be erected on the donated lot, and (b) the lot was to be used solely for beautifying the city. The donor also imposed an obligation on the municipality to acquire adjoining lots to create a public plaza with gardens and streets. The plaintiff-appellee (Barretto) filed an exception against the court’s final decision and petitioned for a rehearing, arguing that the imposed conditions were not precedent.

ISSUE:
Whether the conditions imposed by the donor are precedent conditions or resolutory conditions, and whether the donor has valid grounds to revoke the donation based on the alleged non-compliance with these conditions.

RULING:
The court denied the petition for a rehearing. The court held that the conditions imposed by the donor were not precedent but rather resolutory.
1. Nature of Conditions: Conditions (a) and (b) were deemed resolutory because their fulfillment was not required for the donation to be perfected. Compliance with these conditions necessarily required the donee to first take possession of the lot, which would be delayed or impossible if they were precedent.
2. Proof of Non-Compliance: The court found that it was not proven that the conditions had not been complied with. Similarly, the obligation to acquire adjoining lots was considered a burdensome obligation rather than a precedent condition, and its indefinite nature made its timely compliance difficult to determine.
3. Nature of Obligation: Following jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Spain, the obligation to acquire adjoining lots was characterized as a mere obligation, not a condition whose non-fulfillment could be taken advantage of to invalidate the donation.
4. Donor’s Rights: The donor had the right to either compel compliance with the conditions or revoke the donation. The court’s decision did not deny the donor this option. However, the court clarified that revocation based on non-compliance requires a determined point in time when the obligation became due and was not fulfilled.
5. Time for Compliance: The court noted that the record did not establish a specific timeframe within which the defendant was obligated to comply with the conditions. Without a fixed period for compliance, it is impossible to determine when the defendant became delinquent and thus liable for non-fulfillment.
6. Acceptance of Donation: The court found evidence of acceptance of the donation, as the donee was in possession of the land and its titles for a significant period. The dispute was limited to the compliance of the resolutory obligation imposed in the donation.
7. Conclusion: The court found no sufficient grounds to grant the petition for a rehearing and denied it.