Source: http://philsupreme.clubjuris.com/1960octoberdecisions.php?id=637
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 07:52:59
Document Index: 785400075

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 764', 'Art. 733', 'Art. 1144', 'Art. 764', 'Art. 1389', 'Art. 621', 'Art. 732', 'Art. 647', 'Art. 764', 'Art. 764', 'ART. 1116']

G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA
109 Phil 1077 : October 1960 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions
October 1960 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > October 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15434 October 31, 1960 - DIONISIO NAGRAMPA v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA
109 Phil 1077:
[G.R. No. L-15434. October 31, 1960.]
DIONISIO NAGRAMPA, ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants, v. JULIA MARGATE NAGRAMPA, defendant and appellee.
Ricardo B. Caayao for Appellants.
Gregorio S. Turiano for Appellee.
1. DONATION Inter Vivos; REVOCATION FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION. — Actions for the revocation of donation inter vivos by reason of non-compliance with its conditions prescribe after four years counted from such non-compliance.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; LAPSE OF PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD BEFORE NEW CIVIL CODE TOOK EFFECT. — Although at the time of the donation in 1937 no special period of prescription was fixed, considering, however, that the entire prescriptive period of four years has elapsed since the time the new Civil Code took effect in 1950, the present action for revocation is already barred.
This is a suit to revoke a donation. The court of first instance of Camarines Sur dismissed it on the ground of prescription.
Way back in 1937, the plaintiffs executed a notarial instrument entitled "Onerous donation inter vivos" the pertinent portions of which read as follows:ClubJuris
"That we, Dionisio Nagrampa, Filipino, 69 years of age, and Tecla Collada, Filipino, 68 years old, husband and wife, respectively, residents and with postal address in Iriga, Camarines Sur, Philippines, hereafter called the DONORS, and Julia Margate Nagrampa, Filipino, of legal age, and Pablo Sadang, Filipino, of legal age, wife and husband respectively, all residents and with postal address in Iriga, Camarines Sur, Philippines, hereinafter called the DONEES, have agreed as they do hereby agree to the following;
"That the said DONORS, Dionisio Nagrampa and Tecla Collada, for and in consideration of their love and affection for the said DONEES, Julia Margate Nagrampa and Pablo Sadang, and also for the services rendered and to be rendered to the DONORS by the donees, do by these presents, voluntarily give, grant, and donate to the DONEES, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns forever the following described real properties and the improvements thereon, free from all liens, charges and incumbrances: . . .
"These parcels described above are not registered under Act 496 nor under the Spanish Mortgage Law, hence, the parties herein have agreed to register this instrument under the terms of Act 3344.
"That the said donees, Julia Margate Nagrampa and Pablo Sadang, hereby receive and accept this donation and gift and further express their gratitude for the generosity of the said DONORS who hereby acknowledge the notification of such acceptance by the Donees. . . .
Donors and donees signed and acknowledged the instrument.
On July 21, 1958, this complaint was filed, the plaintiff’s alleging that defendant, in violation of the conditions of the donation, had failed to render them "financial, physical and all kinds of services" ; and that "five defendant Julia Margate Nagrampa (her husband had died) "refused and until now refuses" to render. Copy of the deed of donation was attached to the complaint.
Defendant moved to dismiss, because Art. 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines has fixed a four-year period within which actions to revoke donations may be filed, such period to be counted from the non-compliance with the conditions allegedly violated. The court sustained the motion, and ordered the dismissal of the case.
Plaintiffs have appealed. The period of prescription, they contend, is ten years because this being an onerous donation, it is governed by the law on contracts — Art. 733. Civil Code of the Philippines — and according to Art. 1144 of the same Code, actions upon written contracts must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues.
Appellee replies that Art. 764 is a special provision about revocation that must control general provisions. At any rate, she says, even if the rules of contracts be applied, plaintiff’s action is in effect one for rescission, which action "must be commenced within four years." (Art. 1389.)
The deed of donation was undoubtedly inter vivos. It was captioned "onerous donation inter vivos." It contemplated immediate transfer of ownership. There was no mention of death, the donees "hereby received" the donation, and it provided for registration of the instrument (which donated real property) in the land records. It was not in the form of a will, since there were no three witnesses and no attestation clause. 1
Such donations (inter vivos) "shall be governed by the general provisions concerning contracts and obligations in all matters not determined by this title." Art. 621, Civil Code (Art. 732, Civil Code of the Philippines). And under Art. 647 of the same title (as amended by Art. 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), actions for the revocation of such donation by reason of non-compliance with its conditions prescribe "after four years counted from such non-compliance." Now, therefore, as the complaint described refusal of donees to render services — which refusal constituted the alleged non-compliance — more than five years before the presentation thereof, it is clear that the court a quo committed no error in dismissing it on the ground of prescription. 2
In this connection, it may be explained that although no special period of prescription was fixed in "this title" at the time of the donation in 1937, the provisions of Art. 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines operate, to preclude this action, because the entire period of four years fixed by it has elapsed since the time such Code took effect in 1950: suit in July, 1958, violation in 1953.
"ART. 1116. — Prescription already running before the effectivity of this Code shall be governed by laws previously in force; but if since the time this Code took effect the entire period herein required for prescription should elapse, the present Code shall be applicable, even though by the former laws a longer period might be required. (1939)"
Consequently, the appealed order is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellants.
Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L, Barrera, Gutierrez Davis, and Paredes, JJ., concur.
1. See Cuevas v. 98 Phil., 68; 51 Off. Gaz., 6163; Concepcion v. Concepcion, 91 Phil., 823; Zapanta v. Posadas, 52 Phil., 557; Tuason v. Tuason, 54 Phil., 289; Tagala v. Ybeas, 49 Off. Gaz., 200.
In fact, appellants do not claim, in this Court, that it was mortis causa.
2. This view makes it unnecessary to go into the other points raised by appellee: (a) no violation of the indefinite condition of "future services to be rendered" ; (b) the violation, if any, was ground for rescission of a contract which must be filed within four years.
October-1960 Jurisprudence
G.R. No. L-15709 October 19, 1960 - IN RE: DAMASO CAJEFE, ET AL. v. HON. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.
109 Phil 743
G.R. Nos. L-12483 & L-12896-96 October 22, 1960 - NICOLAS JAVIER, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE DE LEON, ET AL.
109 Phil 751
G.R. No. L-15477 October 22, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO MEDRANO, SR.
109 Phil 762
G.R. No. L-14111 October 24, 1960 - NARRA v. TERESA R. DE FRANCISCO, ET AL.
109 Phil 764
G.R. No. L-14524 October 24, 1960 - FELIX MOLINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
109 Phil 769
G.R. No. L-14625 October 24, 1960 - IN RE: EULOGIO ON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
109 Phil 772
G.R. No. L-15192 October 24, 1960 - PNB v. TEOFILO RAMIREZ:, ET AL.
109 Phil 775
G.R. No. L-15275 October 24, 1960 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING CO., INC.
109 Phil 780
G.R. No. L-16006 October 24, 1960 - PERFECTO R. FRANCHE, ET AL. v. HON. PEDRO C. HERNAEZ, ETC., ET AL.
109 Phil 782
G.R. No. L-11766 October 25, 1960 - SOCORRO MATUBIS v. ZOILO PRAXEDES
109 Phil 789
G.R. No. L-14189 October 25, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIO YAMSON, ET AL.
109 Phil 793
G.R. No. L-15233 October 25, 1960 - JUAN L. CLEMENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
109 Phil 798
G.R. No. L-15326 October 25, 1960 - SEVERINO SAMSON v. DIONISIO DINGLASA
109 Phil 803
G.R. No. L-15502 October 25, 1960 - AH NAM v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.
109 Phil 808
G.R. No. L-16038 October 25, 1960 - AJAX INT’L. CORP. v. ORENCIO A. SEGURITAN, ET AL.
109 Phil 810
G.R. No. L-16404 October 25, 1960 - SAMPAGUITA PICTURES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.
109 Phil 816
G.R. No. L-16429 October 25, 1960 - ALEJANDRO ABAO v. HON. MARIANO R. VlRTUCIO, ET AL.
109 Phil 819
G.R. No. L-14079 October 26, 1960 - METROPOLITAN WATER DIST. v. EDUVIGES OLEDAN NIRZA
109 Phil 824
G.R. No. L-14157 October 26, 1960 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL MUNICIPALITIES v. IGNATIUS HENRY BEZORE, ET AL.
109 Phil 829
G.R. No. L-14724 October 26, 1960 - VICTORINO MARIBOJOC v. HON. PASTOR L. DE GUZMAN, ETC., ET AL.
109 Phil 833
G.R. Nos. L-14973-74 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CASUMPANG
109 Phil 837
G.R. Nos. L-15214-15 October 26, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE C. CRUZ, ET AL.
109 Phil 842
G.R. No. L-11302 October 28, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN P. AGUILAR, ET AL.
109 Phil 847
G.R. No. L-12659 October 28, 1960 - ABELARDO LANDINGIN v. PAULO GACAD
109 Phil 851
G.R. No. L-14866 October 28, 1960 - IN RE: ANDRES ONG KHAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
109 Phil 855
G.R. No. L-15573 October 28, 1960 - RELIANCE SURETY & INS. CO. INC. v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.
109 Phil 861
G.R. No. L-17144 October 28, 1960 - SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR. v. SALIPADA K. PENDATUN, ET AL.
109 Phil 863
G.R. No. L-8178 October 31, 1960 - JUANITA KAPUNAN, ET AL. v. ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL.
109 Phil 889
G.R. No. L-11536 October 31, 1960 - TOMAS B. VILLAMIN v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.
109 Phil 896
G.R. No. L-11745 October 31, 1960 - ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRlAL RELATIONS, ET AL.
109 Phil 900
G.R. No. L-11892 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YAKAN LABAK, ET AL.
109 Phil 904
G.R. No. L-11991 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFIRIO TAÑO, ET AL.
109 Phil 912
G.R. No. L-12226 October 31, 1960 - DAMASO DISCANSO, ET AL. v. FELICISIMO GATMAYTAN
109 Phil 916
G.R. No. L-12401 October 31, 1960 - MARCELO STEEL CORP. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE
109 Phil 921
G.R. No. L-12565 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO HERAS v. CITY TREASURER OF QUEZON CITY
109 Phil 930
G.R. No. L-13260 October 31, 1960 - LINO P. BERNARDO v. EUFEMIA PASCUAL, ET AL.
109 Phil 936
G.R. No. L-13370 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: CHAN CHEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.
109 Phil 940
G.R. No. L-13666 October 31, 1960 - FORTUNATO LAYAGUE, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION PEREZ DE ULGASAN
109 Phil 945
G.R. No. L-13677 October 31, 1960 - HUGH M. HAM v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.
109 Phil 949
G.R. No. L-13875 October 31, 1960 - DANIEL EVANGELISTA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS OF ILOILO, ET AL.
109 Phil 957
G.R. No. L-13891 October 31, 1960 - JOAQUIN ULPIENDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.
109 Phil 964
G.R. No. L-13900 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS ABLAO, ET AL.
109 Phil 976
G.R. No. L-14174 October 31, 1960 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, ET AL.
109 Phil 981
G.R. No. L-14362 October 31, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANI ACANTO, ET AL.
109 Phil 993
G.R. No. L-14393 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CANTILAN LUMBER COMPANY
109 Phil 999
G.R. No. L-14474 October 31, 1960 - ONESIMA D. BELEN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.
109 Phil 1008
G.R. No. L-14598 October 31, 1960 - MARIANO ACOSTA, ET AL. v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL.
109 Phil 1017
G.R. No. L-14827 October 31, 1960 - CHUA YENG v. MICHAELA ROMA
109 Phil 1022
G.R. No. L-14902 October 31, 1960 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS
109 Phil 1027
G.R. No. 15086 October 31, 1960 - NARRA v. FELIX M. MAKASIAR, ETC., ET AL.
109 Phil 1030
G.R. No. L-15178 October 31, 1960 - ROSENDA FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. CATALINO V. FERNANDEZ
109 Phil 1033
G.R. No. L-15234 October 31, 1960 - ANTONIO PIMENTEL v. JOSEFINA GOMEZ, ET AL.
109 Phil 1036
G.R. No. L-15253 October 31, 1960 - IN RE: ODORE LEWIN v. EMILIO GALANG
109 Phil 1041
G.R. Nos. L-15328-29 October 31, 1960 - RUBEN L. VALERO v. TERESITA L. PARPANA
109 Phil 1054
G.R. No. L-15391 October 31, 1960 - BOARD OF DIRECTORS v. DR. LUIS N. ALANDY
109 Phil 1058
G.R. No. L-15397 October 31, 1960 - FELIPE B. OLLADA v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE
109 Phil 1072
109 Phil 1077
G.R. No. L-15459 October 31, 1960 - UNITED STATES LINES COMPANY v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
109 Phil 1081
G.R. No. L-15594 October 31, 1960 - RODOLFO CANO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
109 Phil 1086
G.R. No. L-15643 October 31, 1960 - LIGGETT & MYERS TOBACCO CORP. v. ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.
109 Phil 1093
G.R. No. L-15695 October 31, 1960 - MATILDE GAERLAN v. CITY COUNCIL OF BAGUIO
109 Phil 1100
G.R. No. L-15697 October 31, 1960 - MARIA SALUD ANGELES v. PEDRO GUEVARA
109 Phil 1105
G.R. No. L-15707 October 31, 1960 - JESUS GUARIÑA v. AGUEDA GUARIÑA-CASAS
109 Phil 1111
G.R. No. L-15745 October 31, 1960 - MIGUEL TOLENTINO v. CEFERINO INCIONG
109 Phil 1116
G.R. No. L-15842 October 31, 1960 - DOÑA NENA MARQUEZ v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN
109 Phil 1121
G.R. No. L-15926 October 31, 1960 - BERNABE RELLIN v. AMBROSIO CABlGAS
109 Phil 1128
G.R. No. L-16029 October 31, 1960 - STANDARD VACUUM OIL COMPANY v. LORETO PAZ
109 Phil 1132
G.R. No. L-16098 October 31, 1960 - ANDREA OLARTE v. DIOSDADO ENRIQUEZ
109 Phil 1137
G.R. No. L-16160 October 31, 1960 - MAGDALENA SANGALANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
109 Phil 1140
G.R. Nos. L-16292-94, L-16309 & L-16317-18 October 31, 1960 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MRR., CO. v. YARD CREW UNION
109 Phil 1143
G.R. No. L-16672 October 31, 1960 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JOSE S. RODRIGUEZ
109 Phil 1152