LAW ON PROPERTY | DE LUNA V. ABRIGO 181 SCRA 150, JANUARY 18, 1990
DE LUNA V. ABRIGO
181 SCRA 150, JANUARY 18, 1990
TOPIC/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.
FACTS
It is the
finding of the trial court, which is not disputed by the parties, that the
donation subject of this case is one with an onerous cause. It was made subject
to the burden requiring the donee to construct a chapel, a nursery and a
kindergarten school in the donated property within five years from execution of
the deed of donation.
On
September 23, 1980, herein petitioners, Evelyn, Rosalina, Prudencio, Jr.,
Willard, Antonio and Joselito, all surnamed de Luna, who claim to be the
children and only heirs of the late Prudencio de Luna who died on August 18,
1980, filed a complaint (pp. 14-17, Rollo) with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon alleging
that the terms and conditions of the donation were not complied with by the
foundation. Among others, it prayed for the cancellation of the donation and
the reversion of the donated land to the heirs.
ISSUE
Whether Article 764 of the New
Civil Code or the rules on contracts applies as prescription from the non-compliance of
the conditions of the donation.
RULING
The rules on contract applies.
The
court ruled that it is true that under Article 764 of the New Civil Code,
actions for the revocation of a donation must be brought within four (4) years
from the non-compliance of the conditions of the donation. However, it is Our
opinion that said article 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. From the viewpoint of motive, purpose or
cause, donations may be 1) simple, 2) remuneratory or 3) onerous. A simple
donation is one the cause of which is pure liberality (no strings attached). A
remuneratory donation is one where the donee gives something to reward past or
future services or because of future charges or burdens, when the value of said
services, burdens or charges is less than the value of the donation. An onerous
donation is one which is subject to burdens, charges or future services equal
(or more) in value than that of the thing donated (Edgardo L. Paras, Civil Code
of the Philippines Annotated, 11 ed., Vol. 11, p. 726).
Here,
the court ruled that in the light of the above, the rules on contracts and the
general rules on prescription and not the rules on donations are applicable in
the case at bar. 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 five (5) years from its execution. The complaint which was filed 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.