University of the Philippines

COLLEGE OF LAW
Block F2021

Topic Resolutory Condition or Condition subsequent

Case Number G.R. No. 112127, July 17, 1995
Case Name CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,
REMEDIOS FRANCO, FRANCISCO N. LOPEZ, CECILIA P. VDA. DE LOPEZ,
REDAN LOPEZ AND REMARENE LOPEZ, respondents.
Ponente BELLOSILLO, J. (First Division)
Case Assigned to: Rey DJ and Mario

RELEVANT FACTS

 In 1939, the late Don Ramon Lopez Sr., who was a member of the board of trustees of the
Central Philippine College, now Central Philippine University (CPU), executed a deed of donation
in favor of the latter for a parcel of land, with the following annotations:
o (a) The land described shall be utilized by the CPU exclusively for the establishment and
use of a medical college with all its buildings as part of the curriculum;
o (b) The said college shall not sell, transfer or convey to any third party nor in any way
encumber said land; and
o (c) The said land shall be called Ramon Lopez Campus and the said college shall be
under obligation to erect a cornerstone bearing that name.
 On 31 May 1989 (n.b. 50 years after the donation), private respondents, who are the heirs of
Don Ramon Lopez, Sr., filed an action for annulment of donation, reconveyance and damages
against CPU since the latter has not complied with the conditions of the donation.
 RTC: Petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of the donation; thus null and void.
 CA: Reversed RTC decision, remand the case to determine the time within which petitioner
should comply with the first condition. The annotations at the back of petitioner’s certificate of
title were resolutory conditions breach of which should terminate the rights of the donee thus
making the donation revocable.

ISSUES

 W/N the donation was an onerous one and the obligations imposed upon CPU in the deed of
donation are resolutory conditions
 W/N the right of action of the heirs had prescribed (n.b. not part of topic in syllabus)

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the donation YES.
was an onerous
one and the Donation was onerous, i.e. one executed for a valuable consideration which is
obligations considered the equivalent of the donation itself. When a person donates land to
imposed upon another on the condition that the latter would build upon the land a school, the
CPU in the deed of condition imposed was not a condition precedent or a suspensive condition but
donation are a resolutory one.
 University of the Philippines
COLLEGE OF LAW
Block F2021

resolutory The donation had to be valid before the fulfillment of the condition. If there was
conditions no compliance with the condition, the donation may be revoked and all right
which the donee may have acquired under it shall be deemed lost and
extinguished.
W/N the right of NO.
action of the heirs
had prescribed When CPU accepted the donation, it bound itself to comply with the condition
thereof. Since the time within which the condition must be fulfilled depended
upon petitioner’s exclusive will, its absolute acceptance and the
acknowledgement of its obligation were sufficient to prevent the statute of
limitations from barring the action of the heirs upon the deed of donation.

More than a reasonable period of 50 years has lapsed for petitioner to avail of
the opportunity to comply with the condition.

RULING

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Br. 34, of 31 May 1991 is REINSTATED and
AFFIRMED, and the decision of the Court of Appeals of 18 June 1993 is accordingly MODIFIED.
Consequently, petitioner is directed to reconvey to private respondents Lot No. 3174-B-1 of the
subdivision plan Psd-1144 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3910-A within thirty (30) days
from the finality of this judgment.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

SEPARATE OPINION

DAVIDE, JR., J ., dissenting:

Agrees with the majority opinion in the finding that the donation is an onerous one. But disagrees with
the rest.

 Pointed out the inconsistency in the description of the donation in question, whether onerous
or gratuitous. On page 4 it states that the donation was onerous yet in the last paragraph of
page 8, it states that the donation is basically a gratuitous one.
 The discussion on conditional obligation is unnecessary since there is no conditional obligation
to speak of in this case.
 In the instant case, it’s obviously onerous but is more properly called a “modal donation”, one
in which the donor imposes a prestation upon the donee. The establishment of the medical
college as the condition of the donation in the present case is one such prestation.
 (n.b. Other parts of dissent not part of the syllabus topic not included)