Scribd
Upload
38 views3 pages

CENTRAL PHIL UNIV. vs. Court of Appeals 246 SCRA 511: Villanueva V Bronco

Uploaded by

Jerahmeel Cuevas

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between Shoppers Paradise Realty & Development Corporation and Efren P. Roque. Dr. Felipe Roque had executed an unregistered deed of donation of the land to his son Efren in 1978. In 1993, Dr. Felipe entered into a 25-year lease agreement and memorandum of agreement with Shoppers Paradise over the same land. The agreements were not annotated on the title before Dr. Felipe's death in 1994. Efren claimed ownership based on the unregistered donation. The Court held that an unregistered donation is valid between the donor and donee but does not bind third parties. Since Shoppers Paradise was not aware of the donation, the

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt

CENTRAL PHIL UNIV. vs. Court of Appeals 246 SCRA 511: Villanueva V Bronco

Uploaded by

Jerahmeel Cuevas
38 views3 pages
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between Shoppers Paradise Realty & Development Corporation and Efren P. Roque. Dr. Felipe Roque had executed an unregistered deed of donation of the land to his son Efren in 1978. In 1993, Dr. Felipe entered into a 25-year lease agreement and memorandum of agreement with Shoppers Paradise over the same land. The agreements were not annotated on the title before Dr. Felipe's death in 1994. Efren claimed ownership based on the unregistered donation. The Court held that an unregistered donation is valid between the donor and donee but does not bind third parties. Since Shoppers Paradise was not aware of the donation, the

Original Title

Villanueva v bronco

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between Shoppers Paradise Realty & Development Corporation and Efren P. Roque. Dr. Felipe Roque had executed an unregistered deed of donation of the land to his son Efren in 1978. In 1993, Dr. Felipe entered into a 25-year lease agreement and memorandum of agreement with Shoppers Paradise over the same land. The agreements were not annotated on the title before Dr. Felipe's death in 1994. Efren claimed ownership based on the unregistered donation. The Court held that an unregistered donation is valid between the donor and donee but does not bind third parties. Since Shoppers Paradise was not aware of the donation, the

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
38 views3 pages

CENTRAL PHIL UNIV. vs. Court of Appeals 246 SCRA 511: Villanueva V Bronco

Uploaded by

Jerahmeel Cuevas
This case involves a dispute over ownership of a parcel of land between Shoppers Paradise Realty & Development Corporation and Efren P. Roque. Dr. Felipe Roque had executed an unregistered deed of donation of the land to his son Efren in 1978. In 1993, Dr. Felipe entered into a 25-year lease agreement and memorandum of agreement with Shoppers Paradise over the same land. The agreements were not annotated on the title before Dr. Felipe's death in 1994. Efren claimed ownership based on the unregistered donation. The Court held that an unregistered donation is valid between the donor and donee but does not bind third parties. Since Shoppers Paradise was not aware of the donation, the

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3

Villanueva v bronco

https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2018/06/case-digest-villanueva-vs-spouses.html

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_172804_2011.html

ARTICLE 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession
thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it
who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good
faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who
presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. 

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.
https://ibpzn.com/central-philippine-university-v-ca/

lagazo v ca

rabuya p650

Shoppers Paradise Realty & Development Corporation vs.


Felipe Roque (G.R. No. 148775, January 13, 2004, 419 SCRA
93)
FACTS:
On 23 December 1993, petitioner Shopper’s Paradise Realty & Development Corporation, represented by
its president, Veredigno Atienza, entered into a twenty-five year lease with Dr. Felipe C. Roque, now
deceased, over a parcel of land. Simultaneously, petitioner and Dr. Roque likewise entered into a
memorandum of agreement for the construction, development and operation of a commercial building
complex on the property. Conformably with the agreement, petitioner issued a check for another
P250,000.00 "downpayment" to Dr. Roque.

The contract of lease and the memorandum of agreement, both notarized, were to be annotated on TCT
No. 30591 within sixty (60) days from 23 December 1993 or until 23 February 1994. The annotations,
however, were never made because of the untimely demise of Dr. Felipe C. Roque. The death of Dr.
Roque on 10 February 1994 constrained petitioner to deal with respondent Efren P. Roque, one of the
surviving children of the late Dr. Roque, but the negotiations broke down due to some disagreements.
Respondent then filed a case for annulment of the contract of lease and the memorandum of agreement,
with a prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Efren P. Roque alleged that he had long been the absolute owner of the subject property by virtue of a
deed of donation inter vivos executed in his favor by his parents, Dr. Felipe Roque and Elisa Roque, on
26 December 1978, and that the late Dr. Felipe Roque had no authority to enter into the assailed
agreements with petitioner. The donation was made in a public instrument duly acknowledged by the
donor-spouses before a notary public and duly accepted on the same day by respondent before the
notary public in the same instrument of donation. The title to the property, however, remained in the name
of Dr. Felipe C. Roque, and it was only transferred to and in the name of respondent sixteen years later,
or on 11 May 1994.

The trial court dismissed the complaint of the respondent, explaining that "(o)rdinarily, a deed of donation
need not be registered in order to be valid between the parties. Registration, however, is important in
binding third persons. Thus, when Felipe Roque entered into a leased contract with defendant
corporation, plaintiff Efren Roque (could) no longer assert the unregistered deed of donation and say that
his father, Felipe, was no longer the owner of the subject property at the time the lease on the subject
property was agreed upon."

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court, explaining that petitioner was not
a lessee in good faith having had prior knowledge of the donation in favor of respondent, and that such
actual knowledge had the effect of registration insofar as petitioner was concerned.

HELD:
The existence, albeit unregistered, of the donation in favor of respondent is undisputed. The trial court
and the appellate court have not erred in holding that the non-registration of a deed of donation does not
affect its validity. As being itself a mode of acquiring ownership, donation results in an effective transfer of
title over the property from the donor to the donee. In donations of immovable property, the law requires
for its validity that it should be contained in a public document, specifying therein the property donated
and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy. The Civil Code provides, however, that "titles
of ownership, or other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the
Registry of Property (now Registry of Land Titles and Deeds) shall not prejudice third persons." It is
enough, between the parties to a donation of an immovable property, that the donation be made in a
public document but, in order to bind third persons, the donation must be registered in the registry of
Property (Registry of Land Titles and Deeds). Consistently, Section 50 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration
Act), as so amended by Section 51 of P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree), states:

"SECTION 51. Conveyance and other dealings by registered owner.- An owner of registered land may
convey, mortgage, lease, charge or otherwise deal with the same in accordance with existing laws. He
may use such forms of deeds, mortgages, leases or other voluntary instruments as are sufficient in law.
But no deed, mortgage, lease, or other voluntary instrument, except a will purporting to convey or affect
registered land shall take effect as a conveyance or bind the land, but shall operate only as a contract
between the parties and as evidence of authority to the Register of Deeds to make registration.

"The act of registration shall be the operative act to convey or affect the land insofar as third persons are
concerned, and in all cases under this Decree, the registration shall be made in the office of the Register
of Deeds for the province or city where the land lies."
Nun
https://emirvmendoza.wordpress.com/2018/12/30/case-digest-missionary-sisters-of-our-lady-of-
fatima-vs-alzona-g-r-no-224307-august-06-2018/

You might also like