ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP VS. SPS.

DE CASTRO, GRANADOS AND

TOLENTINO

Judicial declaration for rescission of a contract is not necessary where the

contract provides for its automatic revocation in case of violation of any of its
terms and conditions.

FACTS:
In 1930, the Sps. Eusebio De Castro and Martina Rieta, now both deceased,
executed a deed of donation in favor of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila
covering Lot 626 in Kawit, Cavite with the condition that the done shall not
dispose or sell the property within a period of 100 years from the execution of
the deed of donation otherwise a violation would render it null and void and the
property would revert to the estate of the donors. In 1980, the Roman Catholic
Bishop of Imus, the administrator of all properties in the province of Cavite, sold
the property in favor of Sps. Florencio and Soledad Ignao. As a result, a TCT was
issued in favor of the spouses.

Marina Rieta Granados and Theresa Rieta Tolentino filed a complaint for
nullification of deed of donation, rescission of contract and reconveyance of real
property against Sps. Ignao and the R.C. Bishop of Imus and the R.C. Archbishop
of Manila.
The RTC dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription which was
reversed by the CA thus the case at bar.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not the action has already prescribed
(2) Whether or not the condition is valid

RULING: NO to both issues

1) An action to enforce a contract prescribed in 10 years hence the action has
not yet prescribed. Art. 764 provides that an action for revocation must be
brought within 4 years from the non-compliance of the conditions, however, this
will only apply when the parties have not agreed on the automatic revocation of
the donaton. In the case at bar, the deed of donation expressly provides for the
automatic revocation of the property donated in case of violation therefore
judicial declaration is not necessary. Judicial declaration is only for
determination of the propriety of the rescission sought. When such propriety is
sustained, the decision of the court will be merely declaratory of the revocation
but it is not itself the revocatory act.

2) Although the action may not be dismissed on the ground of prescription, it may
be dismissed on the ground of lack of cause of action. The cause of action was
based on a breach of the resolutory condition, however the condition is not valid
for being contrary to public policy. Donation is a mode of acquiring ownership
and it results in an effective transfer of title over the property from the donor to
the done. Although the donor may impose conditions in the deed of donation, it
must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and public
policy.

The condition in the case at bar, which is a prohibition of alienation for 100
years, is patently unreasonable and an undue restriction on the right of the done
to dispose of the property donated, which right is an indispensable attribute of
ownership. Since it is an considered as an illegal or impossible condition, it will
be considered as not having been imposed. Therefore no breach was committed.