Skip to main content

Secretary of Education vs. Heirs of Dulay, Sr. (G.R. No. 164748, January 27, 2006)

 Facts

  • Rufino Dulay, Sr. and his wife, Ignacia Vicente, donated a 10,000 square meter portion of their land to the Department of Education and Culture (DECS), now the Department of Education (DepEd).
  • The deed of donation included a condition: the land was to be used for school purposes, specifically for the construction of a building for the Rizal National High School.
  • The DECS/DepEd failed to construct the school building, and the land remained unused for many years.
  • The heirs of Rufino Dulay, Sr. filed a case to revoke the donation due to this breach of condition.

Issues

  • Whether the donation was subject to a condition that the DECS/DepEd was required to fulfill.
  • Whether the failure of the DECS/DepEd to use the land for its intended purpose constituted a breach of condition, justifying the revocation of the donation.

Ruling

  • The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the heirs of Rufino Dulay, Sr.
  • The Court held that the donation was made with an explicit resolutory condition – the use of the land for school purposes.
  • The Court found that the DECS/DepEd failed to fulfill its obligation under the donation, making the revocation valid.
  • The DECS/DepEd was ordered to execute a deed of reconveyance, returning the land to the Dulay heirs.

Significance

The case highlights these important legal principles:

  • Donations with Conditions: Donations of property can have conditions attached. If the donee fails to comply with these conditions, the donation may be revoked.
  • Resolutory Conditions: A resolutory condition is a provision that, if breached, results in the automatic termination of a contract or agreement.
  • Obligations of Donees: When accepting a donation with conditions, the donee has a legal obligation to fulfill those conditions.

    Key dates
    • August 3, 1981: The spouses Rufino Dulay and Ignacia Vicente execute the deed of donation, granting the land to the Department of Education and Culture (DECS).
    • April 13, 1983: Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-143337 is issued, covering the donated portion of the land.
    • August 19, 1994: The Dulay spouses send a letter to the DECS Secretary requesting the return of the property as it remained unused.
    • August 28, 1994: Barangay Council of Rizal, Santiago City, issues Resolution No. 39 recognizing the donors' right to redeem the land due to DECS's failure to use it as intended.
    • August 31, 1997: The heirs of Rufino Dulay, Sr. file the case for the revocation of the donation and cancellation of TCT before the RTC in Santiago City.
    • January 27, 2006: The Supreme Court issues the final decision in the case, affirming the revocation of the deed of donation.
    Location: Davao City, Davao del Sur, Philippines

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    Gaite vs. Fonacier (G.R. No. L-11827, July 31, 1961)

      Background: Fernando Gaite owned mining claims containing iron ore. Isabelo Fonacier was a businessman interested in purchasing the iron ore. The Contract: On November 8, 1954, Gaite and Fonacier entered into a contract ("Revocation of Power of Attorney and Contract") where: Gaite revoked a Power of Attorney he had previously granted to someone else regarding the mining claims. Gaite sold Fonacier an estimated 24,000 tons of iron ore from the mining claims for a lump sum price. A surety company issued a bond on December 8, 1954, to guarantee Fonacier's payment to Gaite. This bond expired on December 8, 1955. The Dispute: A disagreement arose between Gaite and Fonacier regarding the amount of iron ore actually delivered: Gaite claimed that he fulfilled the contract and delivered close to the estimated amount. Fonacier alleged that only around 7,573 tons were delivered and sought damages of over P200,000.00. The Legal Proceedings: Gaite filed a case against Fonacier to co...
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    Resolutory Conditions in Obligations and Contracts under Philippine Law

      What are Resolutory Conditions? A resolutory condition is a type of condition attached to a contract or obligation. When this condition is fulfilled, the contract or obligation is automatically extinguished (resolved). Key point:  Resolutory conditions undo an existing contract, as if it never happened in the first place. Resolutory Conditions in Philippine Law The primary source for understanding resolutory conditions in the Philippines is the New Civil Code (Republic Act 386): Article 1191:  Obligations for which a specific date (day certain) is fixed are only demandable when that day arrives. An obligation with a resolutory period takes effect immediately but will end upon the arrival of the specified date. Article 1192:  Even if there isn't a specific date, the courts can establish a period if it can be determined from context that a timeframe was intended. The duration of a period can also be established by the courts if it is dependent on the debtor's will. I...
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    Concept of Payment by Cession in Obligations and Contracts

    T he concept of payment by cession in obligations and contracts, with a focus on Philippine law. What is Payment by Cession? Cession  (or Assignment): In a legal context, cession means transferring a right from one person (the cedent or assignor) to another (the cessionary or assignee). Payment by Cession : This occurs when a debtor, with the consent of the creditor, transfers ownership of their property to the creditor as a form of fulfillment for an outstanding obligation (debt). Key Points (under Philippine Law) Governing Law:  The primary laws governing cession in the Philippines are found in the Civil Code of the Philippines, specifically Articles 1255 to 1263. Consent:  Consent from all parties (debtor, creditor, and potentially third-parties) is generally required for a valid cession. Debtor's Release:  After the cession, the debtor's responsibility is limited to the net proceeds of the assigned property. They are released from further liability unless express...
    Post a Comment
    Read more