De Luna v Abigo

181 SCRA 150 | 1990

DOCTRINE:
. Article 764 of the New Civil Code does not apply to onerous donations in view of
the specific provision of Article 733 providing that onerous donations are
governed by the rules on contracts.
The prescriptive period of an action for revocation of an onerous donation by
reason of non-compliance with the condition/obligation imposed is ten (10) years
counted from the time within which the donee must comply with the
conditions/obligations of the donation.

FACTS:
 1965, Prudencio donated a portion of his lot to the Luzonian Colleges Inc. which
was subject to certain terms and condition and provided for the automatic
reversion to the donor of the donated property in case of non-compliance
 The donee failed to comply with conditions
 1971, the donor revived the donation in favor of the donee which also provided
for automatic reversion in case of noncompliance. The new deed, the donor
imposed upon the donee the obligation of constructing a chapel, nursery and a
kindergarten school in the donated property within five years from the execution
of the deed.
 The donor’s heirs claimed that the conditions were not complied with and filed for
the cancelation of the donation on Sept 23 1980.
 The trial court dismissed the action since the action has already prescribed
 The heirs elevate the matter to the SC that more than 4 years had already lapsed
since 1976.

ISSUE
Whether or not the action for the cancelation has already prescribed

HELD:
No the action has not yet prescribed. The court ruled that because the
donation was subject to an onerous cause such was not governed by the laws of
donation but that of contracts. The trial court was therefore not correct in holding that
the complaint in the case at bar is barred by prescription under Article 764 of the New
Civil Code because Article 764 does not apply to onerous donations. As provided in the
donation executed on April 9, 1971, compliance with the terms and conditions of the
contract of donation, shall be made within fi ve (5) years from its execution. The
complaint which was fi led on September 23, 1980 was then well within the ten (10)
year prescriptive period to enforce a written contract (Article 1144[1], New Civil Code),
counted from April 9, 1976.