PARKS vs. PROVINCE OF TARLAC [1926] c.

Non-compliance of conditions of donation

Plaintiff & Appellant: George L. Parks (considered as onerous thus there’s no special period as per CC Art.
Defendants & Appellees: Province of Tarlac, Municipality of Tarlac, 647), law of contracts & general rules of prescription govern: 10 yrs.
Concepcion Cirer & husband James Hill (Code of Civ. Procedure, Sec. 43)
 In this case, cause of action arose on April
Facts: 19, 1911 (6mos after Oct. 18, 1910 or when the donation was made as
 Oct. 18, 1910: Cirer & Hill donated their land (Land No. 2) perpetually per the condition that work should begin w/in 6mos after document’s
to the Municipality of Tarlac w/certain conditions stipulated in a public ratified). Case was filed on July 5, 1924 w/c is more than 10 years after
document. Conditions were: 1) it will be used absolutely & exclusively for the cause accrued.
the erection of a central school & public park and 2) work will commence
6mos from the date of the ratification of the document. Donation was Holding: Lower court decision affirmed.
accepted by Mr. De Jesus, municipal president. Land was registered in the
name of the municipality.
 Jan. 15, 1921: Cirer & Hill sold the same parcel of land to Parks.
 Aug. 24, 1923: municipality transferred ownership of the land to the
province of Tarlac.
 Parks filed this case claiming that he was the lawful owner of the
land. According to him, the municipality failed to comply w/the conditions
thus, Cirer & Hill sold the land to him. He prayed for the annulment of the
transfer of ownership.
 Lower court dismissed Parks’ complaint.

Issues & Ratio:

1. WON Parks has a right of action. – NO.
 Although the donation might have been revoked, such was
not done when Cirer & Hill sold the land to Parks.
 Revocation should either be consented to by the donee
(municipality) or be judicially decreed.
 When the spouses sold the land, they were no longer the
owners of said land.

2. WON the conditions in the donation were conditions precedent

(suspensive). – NO.
 Condition Precedent: acquisition of the right is not effected
while said condition is not complied with or is not deemed complied with.
 A condition is not suspensive when compliance of w/c cannot
be effected except when the right is deemed acquired.
 In this case, donation was already in effect since the
conditions could only be complied with after giving effect to the donation.
Otherwise, it would have been an invasion of another’s property (donor).
If the conditions were suspensive, the donor would have continued to be
the owner so long as the condition imposed was not complied with.

3. WON non-compliance w/condition subsequent (resolutory)

would be sufficient cause to revoke the donation. – YES.
 However, period for bringing the action has already
prescribed:
a. revocation by subsequent birth of children: 5yrs.
(CC Art. 646)
b. revocation by reason of ingratitude: 1 yr.