Roman Catholic Archbishop vs.

CA/RIETA

G.R. No. 77425 June 19, 1991

Facts:

Rieta filed nullification of Deed of Donation, Recission of Contract and Reconveyance of real property
with damages against Ignao and Roman Catholic Bishop of Imus, Cavite/Manila because the latter
allegedly violated the condition stipulated in the Deed of Donation. The deed of donation has the
condition that “Donee shall not dispose or sell the property within a period of one hundred (100) years
from the execution of the deed of donation, otherwise would render ipso facto null and void; deed and
property would revert back to donors.”

On June 30, 1980, Roman Catholic Bishop of Imus executed a deed of absolute sale to Ignao for
P114,000.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Imus, Cavite/Manila and Ignao filed a separate motions to dismiss with the
following grounds:

1. Respondents have no legal capacity to sue

2. No cause of action

3. Action has prescribed

4. Respondents are not a real party in interest

The RTC ruled that the complaint for cause of action has already prescribed.

On Appeal to CA, the latter ruled that the action has not prescribed. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issue:

Has the cause of action already prescribed?

Ruling:

No. Although it is true that under Article 764 of the Civil Code an action for the revocation of a donation
must be brought within four (4) years from the non-compliance of the conditions of the donation, the
same is not applicable in the case at bar. The deed of donation involved herein expressly provides for
automatic reversion of the property donated in case of violation of the condition therein, hence a
judicial declaration revoking the same is not necessary.

The court relied on the rule that a judicial action for rescission of a contract is not necessary where the
contract provides that it may be revoked and cancelled for violation of any of its terms and conditions.