DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP mortgage in favor of DBP, with Norkis issuing a Sales

Invoice to facilitate the mortgage.

1. ORIGINAL MODE
2. DERIVATIVE MODE Motorcycle was registered in LTO under Alberto but was
delivered to Julian, allegedly the agent of Alberto. The
ORIGINAL MODE - is independent of any pre-existing or motorcycle met an accident.
preceding title or right of another. It result in the
independent creation of a new right of ownership. Alberto filed an action for specific performance against
Norkis.
a) Occupation
b) Creation or Work (Intellectual Creation) Norkis averred that the motorcycle had been delivered as
c) Prescription evidenced by the issuance of the Sales Invoice and
d) Law (ex: Art. 624, 681, and 1434 of CC.) registration in LTO under Alberto.

Occupation - things appropriable by nature that are without SC decision:

an owner, such as animals that are the object of hunting and
Act of delivery, whether constructive or actual, must be
fishing, hidden treasure, and abandoned movables, are
coupled with the delivery of the thing, without which the act
acquired by occupation.
is insufficient.
Creation or work (intellectual creation)
The critical factor which gives legal effect to the act is the
Prescription - as when ownership of land is acquired by actual intention of the vendor to deliver, and its acceptance
adverse possession for the period of time required under the by the vendee. Without that intention, there is no tradition.
law, provided the
When the motorcycle was registered by Norkis in the name
necessary legal conditions or requisites are present.
of private respondent, Norkis did not intend yet to transfer
Law e.g accession, fruits naturally falling on adjacent land. the title or ownership to Nepales, but only to facilitate the
execution of a chattel mortgage.
DERIVATIVE - is when there was a
previous owner of the property. It is an acquisition which Under the civil code, the thing is considered to be delivered
depends on the existence of the right of a certain other when it is placed in the hands and possession of the vendee.
person.
It is not enough to confer upon the purchaser the ownership
a) Succession or Through inheritance and the right of possession. The thing sold must be placed in
b) Donation his control.
c) Tradition
The thing sold remain at the seller’s risk until ownership
A mode is the legal means by which dominion or ownership thereof is transferred to the buyer Therefore, Norkis should
is created, transferred, or destroyed; title is only the legal bear the loss.
basis by which to affect
Kinds of Tradition:
dominion or ownership. Mode creates a real right; title
creates merely a personal right. a) Real tradition
b) Constructive tradition
DELIVERY OR TRADITION
c) Quasi-tradition
Refers to the transfer of possession accompanied d) Tradition by operation of law
by an intention to transfer ownership or other real
Real Tradition which is the physical or actual delivery,
rights.
takes place when the thing is placed in the control and
Ownership is transferred not by contract alone but possession of the grantee.
by delivery.
Constructive tradition is by delivery of a movable or
It should be noted that sale is not a mode, but is immovable thing by means of acts or signs thereof. The
merely a title. It is tradition or delivery, as a change of possession or
consequence of sale, that actually transfers delivery is not materially visible.
ownership.
 Traditio symbolica
It is a rule that ownership can never  Traditio longa manu
pass by the bare delivery of the thing. No delivery  Traditio brevi manu
can be tradition unless it is accompanied by an  Traditio constitutum possessorium
intention to
Tradition by operation of law such as by the registration
transfer ownership.
of a deed of transfer of titled land which is also the
The critical factor in the different modes of operative act in order to bind
affecting delivery which gives innocent persons in such deeds.
legal effect to the act, is the actual intention of the
Quasi-tradition such as delivery which
vendor to deliver, and its
may be made by the execution of a public instrument with
acceptance by the vendee.
respect to incorporeal property.
Norkis Distributor, Inc. v CA

Alberto bought a motorcycle from Norkis by means of

EXECUTION OF PUBLIC INSTRUMENT is equivalent
Letter of Guaranty from DBP. Alberto executed a chattel
to the delivery of the thing.
The execution of a contract of sale as Thus, no right to collect rent.
a form of constructive delivery is but a legal fiction. It
holds true only then there is no legal impediment that may
prevent the passing PRESCRIPTION
of the property from the hands of the vendor into those of
the vendee. Either Ordinary or Extraordinary.

The execution of a public instrument gives rise only to a Ordinary – possession in good faith + just title for 10 years.
prima facie presumption of delivery.
Without good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can
Such presumption is destroyed when it is shown that such only be extraordinary in character.
delivery was not effected because a third person was
POSSESSION IS IN GOOD FAITH when there is a
actually in possession of the thing.
reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing is
EQUATORIAL REALTY v MAYFAIR received has been the owner
thereof and could thereby transmit his ownership.
Mother case:
ABALOS VS HEIRS OF VICENTE TORIO
Mayfair filed for Annulment of Sale between Carmelo &
Equatorial because Carmelo sold a land to Equatorial Topic: Prescription
without their first being offered to Mayfair who has a right
Heirs of Torio filed a case against Jaime who refused to
of first refusal to purchase in connection with a lease
vacate their land. Torio, during his lifetime, allowed Jaime
agreement.
to stay and build their houses in the land.
The SC rescinded the DOS and Carmelo was ordered to
Jaime claims to have acquired ownership through ordinary
allow Mayfair to buy the aforesaid lots.
acquisitive prescription. That owners and possessors of the
Mayfair filed a Motion for Execution, which the trial court disputed lot are his deceased predecessors; that they have
granted but Carmelo could no longer be found. Mayfair been in possession of the lot as owners since time
deposited with the clerk of court its payment to Carmelo. It immemorial; have faithfully and religiously paid RPT.
issued a Deed of Reconveyance in favor of Carmelo and a
SC decision:
Deed of Sale in favor of Mayfair. New title was issued to
Mayfair. Jaime acknowledged ownership thereof by the immediate
predecessor-in-interest of Heirs of Torio ---- as shown by
This case:
the Tax Declaration of Jaime for the year 1984 containing
Equatorial filed an action for the collection of money statement admitting that Jaime's house was built on the land
against Mayfair for rentals after its lease contracts had of Torio. Jaime never disputed such an acknowledgment.
expired representing itself as the owner by reason of the
Thus, Jaime’s possession could not be deemed as possession
Contract of Sale it had with Carmelo.
in good faith as to enable them to acquire the subject land
Issue: Is Mayfair liable to pay rentals to Equatorial ----- NO by ordinary prescription.

SC decision: Also, Jaime’s possession also did not ripen into ownership,
because he failed to meet the required statutory period of
No right of ownership was transferred from Carmelo to extraordinary prescription. Earliest tax dec. of Jaime was in
Equatorial in view of a patent failure to deliver the property 1974 and heirs filed complaint in 1996.
to Equatorial.

Ownership is transferred, not merely by contract, but also Registered land can never be acquired by adverse
by tradition or delivery. And there is said to be delivery if possession applies only to acquisitive prescription. The
and when the thing sold "is placed in the control and rule does not apply to extinctive prescription --- laches.
possession of the vendee."
While it is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and
Equatorial never took actual control and possession of the imprescriptible, the registered owner may lose his right to
property sold, in view of Mayfair’s timely objection to the recover possession of his registered property by reason of
sale and the continued actual possession of the property. laches.
Objection took the form of a court action impugning the sale Four Elements of Laches
which was rescinded by a judgment rendered by this Court
in the mother case. 1. conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one
under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation
Mayfair's opposition to the transfer of the property by way of which complaint is made.
of sale to Equatorial was a legally sufficient impediment 2. delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the
that effectively prevented the passing of the property into complainant having had knowledge or notice, of
the latter's hands. the defendant’s conduct and having been afforded
The sale to Equatorial may have been valid from inception, an opportunity to institute a suit
but it was judicially rescinded before it could be 3. lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the
consummated. Equatorial never acquired ownership, not defendant that the complainant would assert the
because the sale was void but because the sale was not right on which he bases his suit
consummated by a legally effective delivery of the property 4. injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event
sold. relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is
not held to be barred.
 PANGASINAN V. ALMAZORA Before the death of the transferor, the transfer is revocable
at the discretion of the donor. The transfer will be void if the
Topic: Laches transferor should survive the transferee.
Aquilina Martinez borrowed money from Conrado DONATION INTER VIVOS takes effect during the
Almazora. Aquilina gave the owner’s duplicate copy of the donor’s lifetime or independently of the donor’s death. Full
title to Conrado, and Conrado’s family took possession of ownership of the donated properties passes to the donee
the property. during the donor’s lifetime, not by reason of his death.
Conrado was able to transfer title on June 17, 1965 in his If the donation is inter vivos, it must be executed and
name from Aurora Vivar, Aquilana’s only heir. Aurora accepted with the formalities described in Art. 748 and 749
learned it in 1994. of the Civil Code, except for onerous donation, in which
Aurora contended that the owner’s duplicate copy was only case the rules on contracts will apply.
given to Conrado for safekeeping. In 1996 she filed a Types of Donation Inter Vivos
complaint against the heirs of Conrado.
1. pure or simple
SC decision: 2. remuneratory / compensatory
The action must fail, not because Conrado adversely 3. conditional or modal
occupied the property, but because Aurora failed to institute 4. onerous
their suit within the prescriptive period Onerous donation is one that imposes upon the donee a
It was extinctive prescription, and not acquisitive reciprocal obligation. This is the kind of obligation made
prescription, which barred the action of petitioners. for valuable consideration. Governed not by the law of
donations but by the law on contracts.
It took five decades (1945 to 1996) before Aurora decided to
enforce their right on the property. Art. 748. The donation of a movable may be made
orally or in writing.
Conrado’s family would be prejudiced in the event that the
suit would be allowed to prosper. An oral donation requires the simultaneous
delivery of the thing or of the document
The prescriptive period to recover property obtained by representing the right donated.
fraud or mistake, giving rise to an implied trust under
Article 1456 of the Civil Code, is 10 years. If the value of the personal property donated
exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the
The prescriptive period to enforce the constructive trust acceptance shall be made in writing, otherwise, the
shall be counted from the alleged fraudulent registration or donation shall be void.
date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
Art. 749. In order that the donation of an
Allegedly, Conrado employed fraud and bad faith and immovable may be valid, it must be made in a
transferred the title of the land to his name on June 17, public document, specifying therein the property
1965; and because of the purported fraud committed by donated and the value of the charges which the
Conrado against Aurora, an implied constructive trust was donee must satisfy.
created by operation of law, with Conrado as trustee and
Aurora as cestui que trust. The acceptance may be made in the same deed of
donation or in a separate public document, but it
Therefore, Aurora had until June 17, 1975 to enforce the shall not take effect unless it is done during the
implied trust from June 17, 1965 and assert their claim over lifetime of the donor.
the land. With the lapse of the prescriptive period to file an
action, Aurora could no longer seek relief from the courts. If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument,
the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic
form, and this step shall be noted in both
instruments.
DONATION – is an act of liberality whereby a person
disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, In DONATION MORTIS CAUSA, before the death of the
who accepts it. transferor, the transfer is revocable at the discretion of the
donor. The transfer will be void if the transferor should
As a mode of acquiring ownership, donation is perfected
survive the transferee.
from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by
the donee. Once a donation is accepted, the donee becomes In DONATIONS INTER VIVOS, once accepted, becomes
the absolute owner of the property donated. irrevocable but the donation may be made revocable by the
fulfillment of a resolutory condition or for the reasons
DONATIONS MORTIS CAUSA - donation is made in
provided for in Art. 760, 764 and 765.
contemplation of the donor’s death. The full ownership of
the property will pass to the donee only because of the Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the
donor’s death. It is at this time that the donation takes instance of the donor, when the donee fails to
effect. It partakes of the nature of a testamentary provisions. comply with any of the conditions which the
As such, it must be executed in accordance with the former imposed upon the latter.
requisites on the solemnities of wills and testaments;
otherwise, the donation will be considered as void. In this case, the property donated shall be returned
to the donor, the alienations made by the donee
and the mortgages imposed thereon by him being
void, with the limitations established, with regard
 to third persons, by the Mortgage Law and the Lina contended that it was inter vivos as the main
Land Registration Laws. consideration for its execution was Dona Tina’s affection for
her and its revocation was not valid as it was not based on
This action shall prescribe after four years from the grounds provided in Articles 760,764,and 765 of the
the noncompliance with the condition, may be Civil Code.
transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be
exercised against the donee's heirs. SC decision:

BONSATO VS CA Mortis Causa because it was to take effect only upon Doña
Tina’s death.
Topic: Inter Vivos
Nothing in the deed of donation which indicates that any
Joseha alleged that Domingo was induced by his brother right, title or interest in the donated properties was to be
Juan and nephew Felipe to sign a Deed of Donation in their transferred to Lina prior to the death of Doña Tina.
favor and since it was donation mortis causa, they were void
for failure to comply with the formalities of a will. The donation was one mortis causa but it is defective since
the acknowledgment before the notary public was signed
Issue: Whether donation is Mortis Causa or Inter Vivos only by the donor and the donee.
SC decision: Donation is null and void because the required formalities
Donation is Inter Vivos. are defective and it has been validly revoked.

The donor reserved for himself, during his lifetime, the LAGAZO V. CA
owner's share of the fruits or produce, a reservation that Topic: Simple donation
would be unnecessary if the ownership of the donated
property remained with the donor. Before leaving for Canada, Catalina executed SPA
authorizing his son-in-law Eduardo with regard her land.
3 Characteristics of Mortis Causa: Later on she revoked the SPA and executed another SPA in
 transferor retain ownership and control of the favor of Lagazo.
property while alive. While in Canada she executed a DOD in favor of Lagazo.
 before his death, the transfer should be He paid the installments in arrears and the remaining
revocable.
balance on the lot and declared the said property in the
 the transfer should be void if the transferor
name of Catalina Jacob.
should survive the transferee.
Lagazo filed a case against Cabanlit who refused to the
The deeds expressly declare them to be "irrevocable."
vacate the land. Cabanlit alleged that the land was sold to
The phrase "that after the death of the donor the aforesaid him by Eduardo.
donation shall become effective," means that after the
Lagazo claims that the formalities for donation is N/A in his
donor's death, the donation will take effect so as to make the
case since it was an onerous one- he paid for the
donees the absolute owners of the donated property, free
amortizations due on the land before and after the execution
from all liens and encumbrance.
of the deed of donation.
This provision had to be included since the donor reserved
He contends that the burdens, charges or conditions imposed
for himself, a share of the fruits of the land donated. It thus
upon a donation need not be stated on the deed of donation
means that the reservation was only to make it clear that the
itself.
encumbrance he had earlier imposed on the property will
disappear upon his death so that full title would become Being an onerous donation, his acceptance thereof may be
vested in the donees. express or implied, as provided under Art. 1320, and need
not comply with the formalities required by Art. 749.
GANUELAS VS CAWED
SC decision:
Topic: Mortis Causa
Donation was simple donation.
Dona Tina executed a DOD in favor of Lina "for and in
consideration of the love and affection which the donor has A simple or pure donation is one whose cause is pure
for the donee and of the faithful services the latter has liberality, while an onerous donation is one which is
rendered in the past to the former." subject to burdens, charges or future services equal to or
more in value than the thing donated.
The donation was "to become effective upon the death of
the donor, but in the event that the donee should die before Under Article 733 of the Civil Code, donations with an
the donor, the present donation shall be deemed rescinded onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on contracts;
and of no further force and effect." hence, the formalities required for a valid simple donation
are not N/A.
The donation was in public instrument but signed only by
the done & donor (no witnesses signature). Art. 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be
governed by the rules on contracts and
Dona Tina executed a “Revocation of Donation" and latter
remuneratory donations by the provisions of the
died.
present Title as regards that portion which exceeds
Nieces of Dona Tina filed against Lina alleging that the the value of the burden imposed.
donation was mortis causa which failed comply with
formalities, hence void.
Even conceding that Lagazo’s full payment of the purchase Anatalia praying for the nullity of any documents covering
price of the lot might have been a burden to him, such the properties donated to Cesario (son of Tranquilina) since
payment was not however imposed by the donor as a they do not bear the genuine signatures to order the partition
condition for the donation. of the properties between the heirs of Leoncia

It is clear that the donor did not have any intention to burden Cesario alleged that during their lifetime, the spouses
or charge petitioner as the done. The payments made by Aquino had already disposed of their properties by virtue of
Lagazo were merely his voluntary acts. Donation Propter Nuptias to his parents.

Being a simple donation, the donation is perfected only Issue: Will the action for partition filed by the heirs of
upon the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by Anatalia prosper --- NO.
the donee.
SC decision:
Donee's failure to accept a donation whether in the same
deed of donation or in a separate instrument renders the Donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows
donation null and void. of the acceptance by the donee. And once a donation is
accepted, the donee becomes the absolute owner of the
DANGUILAN V IAC property donated.

Topic: Onerous donation The donation made by the Aquino spouses accepted by
Cesario Velasquez, and the acceptance was incorporated in
Apolonia Melad illegitimate daughter of Domingo Melad the body of the same deed of donation and made part of it,
filed a case against Daguilan for land unlawfully withheld and was signed by the donor and the acceptor.
by the latter.
The donation existed perfectly and irrevocably. A
Apolonia claimed she bought the land. DONATION INTER VIVOS may be revoked only for
Domingo Melad signed a private instrument in which he the reasons provided in Articles 760, 764 and 765 of the
gave Danguilan the farm and in which he also gave him the Civil Code.
residential lot, on the understanding that Danguilan would The alleged reason for the repudiation of the deed, i.e., that
take care of Domingo and would bury him upon his death. Anatalia (Leoncia's sister) had several children to support, is
SC decision: not one of the grounds for revocation of donation either
inter vivos or propter nuptias, although the donation might
Domingo Melad did intend to donate the properties to be inofficious.
Danguilan
Properties sought to be partitioned have already been
While they were true donations, conveyances were onerous delivered to the heirs of Casario and therefore no longer part
donations as the properties were given to Danguilan in of the hereditary estate which could be partitioned.
exchange for his obligation to take care of the donee for the
rest of his life. Hence, not covered by the rule in Art. 749
requiring donations of real properties to be effected through FELICIANO CATALAN vs. JESUS BASA
a public instrument.
Martina filed for nullification of DOD against Ignao & the
Donation in question was made for a valuable consideration, Roman Catholic Bishop of Imus.
since the donors made it conditional upon the donee’s
bearing the expenses that might be occasioned by the death His predecessor executed a DOD in favor of Roman
and burial of the donor. Catholic Archbishop over a land and it contained a
provision that the donee shall not sell the property within a
No evidence has been adduced by Apolonia to support her period of one hundred years from the execution of the DOD,
contention that the values exchanged were disproportionate otherwise void. However, it was sold to Ignao within the
or unequal. prohibited period.
We may assume that there was a fair exchange between the
donor and the donee that made the transaction an onerous Ignao and Catholic church filed a MD the complaint on the
donation. The donor died when he was almost one hundred ground that the cause of action has prescribed.
years old.
The CA rule that the action for rescission of the donation
has not yet prescribed.

VALID REVOCATION OF DONATIONS: SC decision:

 Arts. 760- birth or appearance of donor’s child), Judicial action for rescission of a contract is not
 Art. 764 - failure of donee to comply with necessary where the contract provides that it may be
conditions revoked and cancelled for violation of any of its terms and
 765 – ingratitude conditions.

More importantly, the undue restriction on the right of

the owner of the property is contrary to public policy.
VELASQUEZ vs. CA
Although the donor may impose certain conditions in the
Topic: Valid revocation of donation deed of donation, the same must not be contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order and public policy.
Spouses Leoncia & Cornelio Aquino are childless. Leoncia
was survived by her sisters Anatalia & Tranquilina.
The condition imposed in the deed of donation in this case shall not take effect unless it is done during the
constitutes a patently unreasonable and undue restriction lifetime of the donor.
on the right of the donee to dispose of the property
donated, which right is an indispensable attribute of If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument,
ownership. the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic
form, and this step shall be noted in both
Hence, illegal or impossible condition, such condition shall instruments.
be considered as not imposed.
If the notification and notation are not complied with, the
Art. 727. Illegal or impossible conditions in donation is void.
simple and remuneratory donations shall be
considered as not imposed. The charges referred to are the burdens, which must be
inferior in value to the property donated. These charges are
required to be specified in the deed of donation for the
purpose of determining the true amount of the donation.
FORMALITIES IN DONATION
If the charges are equal to or more than the value of the
A donation is a solemn contract which requires form for property donated, the donation is, in reality, a contract, and
purposes of validity. If the formalities required in Art. 748 as such, will be governed by the law on contracts.
and 749 are not followed, the donation shall be void.

The formalities set in Art. 748 and 749 are applicable only
to donations inter vivos and to simple and remuneratory Registration not Necessary for Validity of Donation
donation.
It is enough, between the parties to a donation of an
Donations propter nuptias are also governed by Art. 748 immovable property, that the donation be made in a public
and 749. instrument, but in order to bind third persons, the donation
must be registered in the Registry of Property.

As between the parties to the donation and their assigns, the

Form of Donation of Personal Property: registration of the deed of donation with the Register of
Donation of personal property may be made either orally Deeds is not needed for validity and efficacy.
or in writing. SHOPPER’S V ROQUE
If the value of the property does not exceed 5K, the On Dec. 1978, Dr. Roque executed a DOD Inter Vivos in
donation may be made orally but there must be favor of his son Efren.
simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the document
representing the right donated. If there is no simultaneous The title to the property remained in the name of Dr. Roque,
delivery, the donation is void. and it was only transferred to Efren 16 years later, or on 11
May 1994.
If the value of the personal property exceeds 5K, both the
donation and the acceptance must be in writing, otherwise On Dec. 1993, Dr. Roque entered into 25-year Contract of
the donation shall be void. Lease and the MOA, both notarized, were to be annotated
on the title of the property. However, annotation was not
The donation and acceptance must be in a document, which made due to Dr. Roque’s death.
may be private or public. It need not be in a single
document. Hence, the acceptance may be made in a On February 1995, Efren filed a case for annulment of the
separate instrument and such fact nee not be noted in both contract of lease and the MOA between Shopper’s and his
instruments of donation and acceptance. father.

Art. 748. The donation of a movable may be made CA decision:

orally or in writing.
Shopper’s was not a lessee in good faith having had prior
An oral donation requires the simultaneous knowledge of the donation in favor of Efren, and that such
delivery of the thing or of the document actual knowledge had the effect of registration insofar as
representing the right donated. Shopper’s was concerned.

If the value of the personal property donated SC decision:

exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the
acceptance shall be made in writing, otherwise, the Non-registration of a deed of donation does not affect its
donation shall be void. validity, which has resulted in an effective transfer of title
over the property from the donor to the donee.

In donations of immovable property, for validity, the law

Form of Donation of Real Property requires that it be contained in a public document.

Art. 749. In order that the donation of an But titles of ownership, or other rights over immovable
immovable may be valid, it must be made in a property, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the
public document, specifying therein the property Registry of Property shall not prejudice third persons.
donated and the value of the charges which the
donee must satisfy. In order to bind third persons, the donation must be
registered in the registry of Property.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of
donation or in a separate public document, but it
But, where such party has knowledge of a prior existing If the conditions refer to obligations or charges imposed
interest which is unregistered at the time he acquired a right by the donor on the donee, then it takes the character of an
thereto, his knowledge of that prior unregistered interest onerous donation, which under Art. 733, should be
would have the effect of registration as regards to him. governed by the rules on contracts, which provides that an
action to enforce a written contract prescribes in 10 years.
Shopper’s was aware that Dr. Roque was not anymore the
owner of the property. And since Dr. Roque was not an But Art. 764 which also refers to failure to comply with any
agent of Efren, the contract of lease and memorandum of of the conditions imposed by the donor. In such a case, the
agreement entered into between Dr. Roque and Shopper’s is action will prescribe in four years.
not to be binding on Efren.
Art 764 – 4 years

Art 733 – 10 years

REVOCATION OF DONATION

Grounds: When there is a failure to comply with the conditions of a

donation, which between Art. 764 and 733 should apply?
a) Subsequent appearance of children;
b) Non-fulfillment of the charges imposed in the It appears from jurisprudence that Art, 764 applies where
donation; there is a provision in the deed of donation for the
c) The ingratitude of the donee; automatic reversion of the property.
d) The fact that the donation is inofficious;
However, Art 764 does not apply in case of
If, despite the happening of these events (grounds) , the violation of the condition therein and there is no
proper action for revocation is not instituted, or is challenge to the revocation.
instituted after the lapse of the period of prescription, the
donation will be forever considered valid. DE LUNA VS ABRIGO

Prescriptive period of an action for revocation or reduction De Luna donated a land to Luzonian Colleges with certain
under Art. 760 is four years, reckoned from the birth of the terms & conditions provided for the automatic reversion to
first child, or from his legitimation, or from judicial the donor of the donated property in case of violation or
declaration of filiation, or from the time of information non-compliance.
regarding existence of a child believed to have been dead. Donee failed to comply. On April 9, 1971, de Luna
The action can be transmitted, upon the death of the donor, "revived" the said donation subject to terms and conditions
to his legitimate or illegitimate children and descendants, if and provided for the automatic reversion to the donor of the
the donor dies within the four year prescriptive period. donated area in case of violation of the conditions, without
the need of executing any other document for that purpose
Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the and without obligation whatever on the part of the donor.
instance of the donor, when the donee fails to
comply with any of the conditions which the On September 23, 1980, the heirs of the late Prudencio de
former imposed upon the latter. Luna filed for the cancellation of the donation since the
school was not able to comply with the conditions of the
In this case, the property donated shall be returned donation.
to the donor, the alienations made by the donee
and the mortgages imposed thereon by him being School invoked the affirmative defense of prescription of
void, with the limitations established, with regard action and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint
to third persons, by the Mortgage Law and the SC decision:
Land Registration Laws.
Not yet prescribed.
This action shall prescribe after four years from
the noncompliance with the condition, may be Donation in this case was an onerous donation since it
transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be created a burden on the donee. Being onerous, it will be
exercised against the donee's heirs. governed by the law on contracts.

Art. 1144. The following actions must be brought In prescription of actions for the revocation of onerous
within ten years from the time the right of action donation, the general rules on prescription applies.
accrues:
Even if Article 764 provides that actions for the revocation
a) Upon a written contract; of a donation must be brought within four years from the
b) Upon an obligation created by law; non-compliance of the conditions of the donation,
c) Upon a judgment. however, said article does not apply to onerous donations
in view of the specific provision of Article 733 providing
Art. 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be that onerous donations are governed by the rules on
governed by the rules on contracts and remuneratory contracts.
donations by the provisions of the present Title as
regards that portion which exceeds the value of the The rules on contracts and the general rules on
burden imposed. prescription and not the rules on donations are applicable
in the case at bar.
ART. 764 Failure to Comply with Conditions In relation To
Art. 733. The complaint which was filed on September 23, 1980 was
then well within the ten year prescriptive period to enforce
a written contract counted from April 9, 1971.