CENTRAL PHIL UNIV. vs.

Court of Appeals 246 SCRA 511

FACTS:
1. CPU: (1939) Don Ramon Lopez Sr. executed a deed of donation
Conditions of the donation:
a) Land should be utilized exclusively for the establishment & use of medical college.
b) College shall not sell transfer or convey to any 3rd party.
c)
Land shall be called Ramon Lopez Campus
d) Income from that land shall be put in Ramon Lopez Campus Fund for improvement
of the facility.
2. HEIRS (LOPEZ): (1989) filed an action for annulment of donation, reconveyance &
damages:
a) Non-compliance with the conditions.
b) Negotiation with the NHA to exchange the donated property with another land.
*CPU argued:
right to file action has prescribed
no violation because did not use property
*Lower Court sided with LOPEZ HEIRS.
ISSUE:
1. WON CPU failed to comply conditions given there was no fixed period? YES
2. WON there is a need to fix the period for compliance of the condition? NO
HELD:
RTC ILOILO DECISION REINSTATED
CA DECISION MODIFIED
RECONVEYANCE TO LOPEZ HEIRS WITH COSTS
1. RESOLUTORY CONDITION: upon fulfillment, terminates an enforceable obligation.
a. Rights are lost once the condition is fulfilled.
b. Entitles parties to resort back to original positions.
c. Takes effect if either parties do not comply with his/her engagements (in which
complaining party may sue for dissolution of contract with damages)
2. ARTICLE 1181: CONDITIONAL OBLIGATIONS
Acquisition of rights, extinguishment/loss of acquired, shall depend on happening event
that constitutes the condition.
a. Donating land to another on the condition that the latter would build upon the land a
school is RESOLUTORY IN CONDITION. The donation had to be valid before the fulfillment
of the condition. If there was no fulfillment with the condition such as what obtains in the
instant case, the donation may be revoked and all rights the donee may have acquired
shall be lost and extinguished.
b. More than a reasonable period of fifty (50) years has already been allowed petitioner
to avail of the opportunity to comply with the condition even if it be burdensome, to
make the donation in its favor forever valid. But, unfortunately, it failed to do so. Hence,
there is no more need to fix the duration of a term of the obligation when such procedure
would be a mere technicality and formality and would serve no purpose than to delay or
lead to an unnecessary and expensive multiplication of suits.
c. Petitioner has slept on its obligation for an unreasonable length of time. Hence, it is
only just and equitable now to declare the subject donation already ineffective and, for
all purposes, revoked so that petitioner as donee should now return the donated property
to the heirs of the donor, private respondents herein, by means of reconveyance.
d. RECONVEYANCE: property held by a trustee/mortgage is returned to its owner on his
request.
3. ARTICLE 1197: OBLIGATIONS WITH NO FIXED PERIOD
GENERAL RULE: Period can be inferred from its nature or circumstances.
Court can fix the duration because the fulfillment of the obligation itself cannot be
demanded until after the court has fixed the period for compliance.

a. CASE AT HAND: General rule cannot be applied in this case considering the different
set of circumstances existing more than a reasonable period of 50 years has already
been allowed to petitioner to avail of the opportunity to comply but unfortunately, it
failed to do so.
b. Hence, there is no need to fix a period when such procedure would be a mere
technicality & formality & would serve no purpose than to delay or load to unnecessary
and expensive multiplication of suits.