8/11/2019 07 Quijada v. CA (1998)

1/4

8/11/2019 07 Quijada v. CA (1998)

2/4

7- orderin$ an& person actin$ in Defendants( behalf to vacate and restore the peacefulpossession of the land in %uestion to Plaintiffs?

- orderin$ the cancellation of the Deed of Sale e5ecuted b& the late rinidad !ui"adain favor of Defendant Re$alado Monde"ar as 'ell as the Deeds ofSale@Relin%uish#ents e5ecuted b& Monde"ar in f avor of the other Defendants?

B- orderin$ Defendants to re#ove their i#prove#ents constructed on the %uestionedlot?

- orderin$ the Defendants to pa& Plaintiffs, "ointl& and severall&, the a#ount ofP/9,999.99 representin$ attorne&(s fees?

1- orderin$ Defendants to pa&s the a#ount of P8,999.99 as e5penses of liti$ation? and

;- orderin$ Defendants to pa& the su# of P 9,999.99 representin$ #oral da#a$es.

SO ORDERED. 2

On appeal, the Court of )ppeals reversed and set aside the "ud$#ent a quo ) rulin$ thatthe sale #ade b& rinidad !ui"ada to respondent Monde"ar 'as valid as the for#erretained an inchoate interest on the lots b& virtue of the auto#atic reversion clause inthe deed of donation. 4 hereafter, petitioners filed a #otion for reconsideration. henthe C) denied their #otion, * petitioners instituted a petition for revie' to this Courtar$uin$ principall& that the sale of the sub"ect propert& #ade b& rinidad !ui"ada torespondent Monde"ar is void, considerin$ that at that ti#e, o'nership 'as alread&transferred to the Municipalit& of alaco$on. On the contrar&, private respondentscontend that the sale 'as valid, that the& are bu&ers in $ood faith, and that petitioners(case is barred b& laches. 6

e affir# the decision of the respondent court.

he donation #ade on )pril , /0 1 b& rinidad !ui"ada and her brother and sisters + 'as sub"ect to the condition that the donated propert& shall be Aused solel& ande5clusivel& as a part of the ca#pus of the proposed Provincial i$h School inalaco$on.A 8 he donation further provides that should Athe proposed Provincial i$hSchool be discontinued or if the sa#e shall be opened but for so#e reason or another,the sa#e #a& in the future be closedA the donated propert& shall auto#aticall& revert tothe donor. 9 Such condition, not bein$ contrar& to la', #orals, $ood custo#s, publicorder or public polic& 'as validl& i#posed in the donation. 1

hen the Municipalit&(s acceptance of the donation 'as #ade =no'n to the donor, thefor#er beca#e the ne' o'ner of the donated propert& F donation bein$ a #ode ofac%uirin$ and trans#ittin$ o'nership 11 F not'ithstandin$ the condition i#posed b& thedonee. he donation is perfected once the acceptance b& the donee is #ade =no'n tothe donor. 12 )ccordin$, o'nership is i##ediatel& transferred to the latter and thato'nership 'ill onl& revert to the donor if the resolutor& condition is not fulfilled.

In this case, that resolutor& condition is the construction of the school. It has been ruledthat 'hen a person donates land to another on the condition that the latter 'ould buildupon the land a school, the condition i#posed is not a condition precedent or asuspensive condition but a resolutor& one. 1) hus, at the ti#e of the sales #ade in/017 to'ards /018, the alle$ed seller rinidad- could not have sold the lots since shehad earlier transferred o'nership thereof b& virtue of the deed of donation. So lon$ asthe resolutor& condition subsists and is capable of fulfill#ent, the donation re#ainseffective and the donee continues to be the o'ner sub"ect onl& to the ri$hts of thedonor or his successors+in+interest under the deed of donation. Since no period 'asi#posed b& the donor on 'hen #ust the donee co#pl& 'ith the condition, the latterre#ains the o'ner so lon$ as he has t ried to co#pl& 'ith the condition 'ithin areasonable period. Such period, ho'ever, beca#e irrelevant herein 'hen the donee+

Municipalit& #anifested throu$h a resolution that it cannot co#pl& 'ith the condition ofbuildin$ a school and the sa#e 'as #ade =no'n to the donor. Onl& then F 'hen thenon+fulfill#ent of the resolutor& condition 'as brou$ht to the donor(s =no'led$e F thato'nership of the donated propert& reverted to the donor as provided in the auto#aticreversion clause of the deed of donation.

he donor #a& have an inchoate interest in the donated propert& durin$ the ti#e thato'nership of the land has not reverted to her. Such inchoate interest #a& be thesub"ect of contracts includin$ a contract of sale. In this case, ho'ever, 'hat the donorsold 'as the land itself 'hich she no lon$er o'ns. It 'ould have been different if thedonor+seller sold her interests over the propert& under the deed of donation 'hich issub"ect to the possibilit& of reversion of o'nership arisin$ fro# the non+fulfill#ent of theresolutor& condition.

)s to laches, petitioners( action is not &et barred thereb&. 2aches presupposes failure or ne$lect for an unreasonable and une5plained len$th of ti#e, to do that 'hich, b&e5ercisin$ due dili$ence, could or should have been done earlier? 14 Ait is ne$li$ence oro#ission to assert a ri$ht 'ithin a reasonable ti#e, thus, $ivin$ rise to a presu#ptionthat the part& entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert it.A 1* Itsessential ele#ents of*

a- Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under 'ho# he clai#s, $ivin$ rise tothe situation co#plained of?

2

8/11/2019 07 Quijada v. CA (1998)

3/4

b- Dela& in assertin$ co#plainant(s ri$ht after he had =no'led$e of the defendant(sconduct and after he has an opportunit& to sue?

c- 2ac= of =no'led$e or notice on the part of the defendant that the co#plainant 'ouldassert the ri$ht on 'hich he bases his suit? and,

d- In"ur& or pre"udice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the co#plainant.16

are absent in this case. Petioners( cause of action to %uiet title co##enced onl& 'henthe propert& reverted to the donor and@or his successors+in+interest in /08;. Certainl&,'hen the suit 'as initiated the follo'in$ &ear, it cannot be said that petioners had slepton their ri$hts for a lon$ ti#e. he /019(s sales #ade b& rinidad !ui"ada cannot bethe rec=onin$ point as to 'hen petitioners( cause of action arose. he& had no interestover the propert& at that ti#e e5cept under the deed of donation to 'hich privaterespondents 'ere not priv&. Moreover, petitioners had previousl& filed an e"ect#ent suita$ainst private respondents onl& that it did not prosper on a technicalit&.

8/11/2019 07 Quijada v. CA (1998)

4/4

4