The Supreme Court has denied the petition of the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) and declared that the Deed of Donation over Lot No. 4726-A in favor of Lapu-Lapu City is valid and subsisting, with no substantial breach of the condition attached to it. The Court declared Lapu-Lapu City the lawful owner of the lot.
The Case
Spouses Marcos and Basilisa Seno were the registered owners of Lot No. 4726, later subdivided into Lot Nos. 4726-A and 4726-B. Only Lot No. 4726-A was relevant to this petition.
In 1935, the spouses donated Lot No. 4726-A to Lapu-Lapu City, subject to the condition that the property "shall be used exclusively and forever for school purposes only." Pursuant to the condition, Ibo Elementary School was constructed on the property. The school was later demolished and transferred to another location due to the increasing student population.
In 1958, some of the heirs of the spouses Seno executed an Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale covering the entire Lot No. 4726, including Lot No. 4726-A, in favor of MCIAA.
Years later, the heirs filed an action for recovery of Lot No. 4726, including Lot No. 4726-A. They claimed the sale to MCIAA was void since the lot had already been donated to Lapu-Lapu City, and that because the City did not comply with the school-purpose condition, ownership of the lot reverted back to them.
MCIAA agreed that Lapu-Lapu City's failure to comply with the donor's condition triggered reversion to the heirs, but argued that ownership had passed to it through the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale, making it the rightful owner. Lapu-Lapu City maintained the validity and subsistence of the donation, saying it continued to intend to use the property for educational purposes.
The Regional Trial Court initially held that the City violated the condition, but on reconsideration upheld the validity of the donation and declared Lapu-Lapu City the rightful owner of Lot No. 4726-A. The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC's ruling that the City remained the owner of Lot No. 4726-A, holding that the donation was valid and subsisting and that the transfer of the school did not amount to abandonment.
The Issue
The Court framed the issue as: Did the CA err in upholding Lapu-Lapu City's ownership of Lot No. 4726-A?
The Ruling
The Court found the petition unmeritorious. In its disposition, it ruled: "FOR THESE REASONS, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated September 28, 2018 and the Resolution dated January 24, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 06062 are AFFIRMED. The Deed of Donation over Lot No. 4726-A in favor of respondent Lapu-Lapu City is declared VALID and SUBSISTING, there being no substantial breach of the condition. Accordingly, respondent Lapu-Lapu City is DECLARED the lawful owner of Lot No. 4726-A."
By the Numbers
- 1935 — the year the spouses Seno donated Lot No. 4726-A to Lapu-Lapu City
- 1958 — the year some heirs executed the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale in favor of MCIAA
- 1991 — the year MCIAA said Ibo Elementary School had been demolished
- August 24, 1998 — the letter of Dr. Caridad C. Labe acknowledging prior use and the plan to continue using the property for school purposes
- September 28, 2018 — date of the Court of Appeals Decision affirmed by the Court
- January 24, 2020 — date of the Court of Appeals Resolution affirmed by the Court
- Lot No. 4726-A — 5,041 square meters
- G.R. No. 252621 — the docket number of this case
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that to justify the revocation of a donation for breach of a condition, the noncompliance must be substantial and fundamental, not merely slight or casual, taking into account the purpose of the donation and the parties' intent. It cited the rule that rescission will not be permitted for a slight or casual breach, but only for breaches so substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties in making the agreement.
Measured against this standard, MCIAA failed to establish a breach sufficient to warrant revocation. The records did not show that Lapu-Lapu City abandoned the property or repudiated the donor's intent that the land be devoted to educational purposes. Instead, the City consistently maintained that Lot No. 4726-A remained intended for school use and that the demolition of the school building was prompted by the practical necessity of transferring the school to accommodate a growing student population.
The Court noted that this continuing intention was confirmed by the August 24, 1998 letter of Dr. Caridad C. Labe, then Schools Division Superintendent, which acknowledged the prior use of the property as the site of Ibo Elementary School and the plan to continue using it for school purposes. It added that the City's present inability to use the property appears attributable, at least in part, to MCIAA's own occupation and use of the property. A party cannot invoke the nonfulfillment of a condition where such nonfulfillment was caused or materially contributed to by its own acts.
Because there was no valid revocation of the donation, no right of reversion accrued to the heirs, and MCIAA could not derive any right from the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale. The Court invoked the principle Nemo dat quod non habet — no one can give what one does not have.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 252621.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.