PARKS v.

PROVINCE OF TARLAC

July 13, 1926 | Avancena, CJ. | Resolutory Condition or Condition Subsequent

PETITIONER: George L. Parks
RESPONDENT: Province of Tarlac, Municipality of Tarlac Concepcion Cirer, James Hill
SUMMARY: Cirer and Hill donated parcels of land to the Municipality of Tarlac on the condition that they build on the land
a public school and a park. The condition has not been complied with. Years after, Cirer and Hill sold the same parcels of land
to George Parks. He prayed that the donation of the lands to Tarlac be annulled because of its non-compliance with the
condition. The Court ruled that the donations were effective and even if they would want to revoke the donation because of
their non-compliance with the condition, their right to bring an action for revocation had already prescribed.
DOCTRINE: When a condition is imposed and the compliance of which cannot be effected except when the right is
acquired, such condition is a condition subsequent.

FACTS:

RATIO:

1.

1.

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.

Oct 18, 1910 - Concepcion Cirer and James Hill, owners

of the parcels of land, donated them perpetually to the
Municipality of Tarlac under certain conditions.
Conditions: One of the parcels of land donated was to
be used for the erection of a central school, the other for
a public park, the work to commence within 6 months
from the date of the ratification by the parties of the
document.
These conditions have not been complied with.
This donation was accepted and registered in the name
of Municipality of Tarlac.
Jan 15, 1921 - Cirer and Hill sold this parcel to George
Parks.
Aug 24, 1923 the Municipality of Tarlac transferred
the parcel to the Province of Tarlac and had it
registered.
Parks: Brought this action against Tarlac, alleging that
the conditions of the donation had not been complied
with, therefore the transfer of the land to Tarlac should
be annulled.
Lower Court: dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE/S:
1. WON the conditions are conditions precedent
NO, they are conditions subsequent.
2. WON the donation became effective
YES, the donation became effective and has not
been revoked.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

It is true that the conditions have not been complied

with, but these conditions are not conditions precedent.
The characteristic of a condition precedent is that the
acquisition of a right is not effected while said condition
is not complied with. Nothing is acquired, there is only
an expectancy of a right.
Consequently, when a condition is imposed and the
compliance of which cannot be effected except when
the right is deemed acquired, such condition cannot be
condition precedent.
Therefore, a condition
subsequent.
In this case, the conditions that a public school and a
park be made of the donated land could not be complied
with except after giving effect to the donation. The
donee could not do any work on the donated land if the
donation had not really been effected, because it would
be an invasion of anothers title. These conditions are
conditions subsequent.
Even in a condition subsequent, non-compliance with
the condition is sufficient cause for the revocation of
the donation. However, the period for bringing an
action for the revocation has prescribed.
The period of prescription of this class of action is 10
years. The action for revocation of the donation arose
on April 19, 1911, 6 months after the ratification of the
instrument of donation. The complaint in this action
was presented July 5, 1924, more than 10 years after
this cause accrued.

RULING:
Judgment of the lower court AFFIRMED.