Dolar v. Barangay Lublub

a. Nature of Donations — Perfection of donation (Art. 734) · d. Revocation and Reduction — Failure to comply with conditions (Art. 764): remedy of donor

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Quijada v. Court of AppealsPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: Araneta v. PerezNext case→

Case DigestChapter XI — Donation

Dolar v. Barangay Lublub

G.R. No. 152663 · November 18, 2005 · Supreme Court

a. Nature of Donations — Perfection of donation (Art. 734) · d. Revocation and Reduction — Failure to comply with conditions (Art. 764): remedy of donor

Gist

A donor gave a barangay 4.6 hectares in 1981 for public facilities, and the barangay captain accepted in the same instrument. Government buildings went up on it. Years later the donor took out a title in his own name, bought the lot at a tax auction, and sued to recover it. The Court dismissed him: the donation was perfected in 1981, the barangay's decades of use ratified any defect in acceptance, and his revocation claim had long prescribed.

Core Doctrine

Under Article 734 a donation is a gratuitous contract perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee — and where acceptance is made in the same public instrument, knowledge is simultaneous with execution. Once ownership is transmitted by perfection and tradition, the donor is divested of title and cannot validly make later inconsistent dispositions. An action to revoke for non-compliance prescribes.

Facts

On September 16, 1981, petitioner Edgardo Dolar and Serafin Jaranilla executed a deed of donation over Lot No. 1 (4.6 hectares) in favour of respondent Barangay Lublub, on condition that the area be used for public facilities and that construction be completed within five years.
On the same date, then barangay captain Jose Militar accepted the donation for the barangay in the same public instrument. (Because donor and donee signed one document, the donor's knowledge of the acceptance was simultaneous with execution — perfection under Article 734 happened that day and needed nothing further.)
The barangay immediately took possession and allowed the construction of government buildings, including a trial court branch, a water district office and a police mobile force station, but failed to register the donation. Decades of occupying the land and putting public buildings on it is what later ratified any defect in the captain's authority to accept.
On April 12, 1989, the petitioner was issued TCT No. T-129837 covering the donated area; in June 1989 he executed a second deed of donation to the same barangay over the same property on identical conditions. (He had parted with the land in 1981, so the second deed was "of little moment" and the certificate evidenced a title he no longer held.)
Lot No. 1 was later sold at public auction for non-payment of realty taxes, and the petitioner was the highest bidder and was awarded the property.
On May 6, 1998, the petitioner filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession (Civil Case No. 98-033), alleging the donation had ceased to be effective for non-fulfilment of the five-year construction condition; the barangay filed a separate complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance (Civil Case No. 00-140). The five-year period expired around 1986, so a revocation action had to be brought long before 1998 — twelve years is fatal on any view of the period.
On January 3, 2002, the trial court dismissed the petitioner's complaint, ruling that the action was one for revocation and was barred by prescription; he appealed directly to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law, decided November 18, 2005.

Issue

Whether the 1981 donation was validly perfected under Article 734 so as to divest the petitioner of ownership, notwithstanding the alleged lack of formal authority of the accepting official.

Secondary issue. Whether the action to revoke the donation for breach of conditions under Article 764 is barred by extinctive prescription.

Ruling

Main issue. YES. An inter vivos donation is "a gratuitous contract whereby the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably, of the thing given in favor of the donee," and under Article 734 it is perfected "only upon the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee." Because the donor and the barangay captain signed the same instrument, the donor's knowledge of the acceptance was simultaneous with execution. As to the challenge under Article 745, the petitioner was not the proper party to invoke the punong barangay's alleged ultra vires act; and in any event the Sangguniang Barangay, "by availing themselves of such benefits for more than two decades now, effectively ratified Militar's acceptance of the donation." Upon perfection and tradition — the public instrument plus actual possession — the barangay became owner under Article 712, so by nemo dat qui non habet the 1989 second deed was "of little moment," the property being "no longer his to donate."

Secondary issue. YES, it is barred. An action for quieting of title lies only against a cloud on a "valid or effective" title, and the barangay's claim proceeded from a valid donation never judicially revoked; in substance the suit was one for revocation. Under Article 764 such an action prescribes in four years, and even on the more favourable ten-year period for written contracts under Article 1144, the right to sue on a breach occurring in 1986 expired in 1996 — so the 1998 complaint was too late. The Court added that the public utilities and courtroom in fact "substantially satisfies the terms and conditions of the subject donation."

The petition was DENIED for lack of merit, with costs against petitioner.

"A donation … is a gratuitous contract whereby the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably, of the thing given in favor of the donee."

Ratio

Contractual perfection. An inter vivos donation is "a gratuitous contract whereby the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably, of the thing given in favor of the donee," and under Article 734 the contract is perfected "only upon the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee." Donor and barangay captain having signed the same instrument, that knowledge was simultaneous with execution.
Validation through ratification. On the challenge to the official's authority under Article 745, the petitioner was not the proper party to invoke the punong barangay's alleged ultra vires act; and the Sangguniang Barangay "by availing themselves of such benefits for more than two decades now, effectively ratified Militar's acceptance of the donation."
Transmission of title. Upon perfection and the subsequent tradition through a public instrument and actual possession, the barangay became the owner under Article 712. By nemo dat qui non habet, the 1989 deed was "of little moment" because the property was "no longer his to donate."
Prescription of revocation. Quieting of title lies only against a cloud on a "valid or effective" title; the barangay's claim came from a valid, unrevoked donation, so the suit was in substance one for revocation. Under Article 764 that prescribes in four years, and even on the ten-year period of Article 1144 the right to sue on a 1986 breach expired in 1996.
Substantial compliance. The establishment of public utilities and a trial court courtroom "substantially satisfies the terms and conditions of the subject donation."

Doctrine

The rule of cognition: a donation is not perfected by the mere act of giving; it requires reciprocal consent and the donor's actual or constructive knowledge of the donee's acceptance.
Acceptance in the same deed: where acceptance is made in the same public instrument, the donation is perfected immediately, knowledge being established by the instrument itself.
Presumption of validity: a donation is presumed valid, and the burden of proving lack of capacity or authority rests on the party alleging it — and a defect in authority may be cured by the principal's ratification through conduct.
Automatic reversion clauses: such a stipulation revokes the donation without need of a judicial act, but if the donee disputes the rescission, "then only the final award of the court can … conclusively settle whether the resolution is proper or not."
Substance controls the caption: a suit that is in reality one for revocation carries revocation's prescriptive period, whatever it is called.

Assigned twice. The syllabus lists this case under a. Nature of Donations — Perfection of donation (Art. 734) and again under d. Revocation and Reduction — Failure to comply with conditions (Art. 764): remedy of donor. Both assignments are answered from the single digest below — the supra entry re-uses this holding rather than adding a new one. The two headings track the case's two halves: when the donation became binding (1981, on simultaneous acceptance), and what the donor could still do about it afterwards (nothing, the four-year window having closed by 1990 and the ten-year one by 1996).

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

Relationship to requested topic: DIRECT.

This case involves a petition for review of a trial court order dismissing a complaint for quieting of title and recovery of possession filed by a donor against a donee-barangay regarding a 4.6-hectare parcel of land donated in 1981. While the petitioner claimed the donation was void for lack of authority of the accepting official and had become ineffective due to the breach of resolutory conditions, the trial court and the Supreme Court sustained the validity of the transfer. The Court held that the donation was validly perfected upon the execution of the deed and that the long-term use of the property for public services effectively ratified any alleged defect in the acceptance. The single central doctrine is that under Article 734 of the Civil Code, a donation is a gratuitous contract perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee; once ownership is transmitted through such perfection and tradition, the donor is divested of title and cannot validly execute subsequent inconsistent dispositions.

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

On September 16, 1981, petitioner Edgardo Dolar and Serafin Jaranilla executed a deed of donation covering Lot No. 1 (4.6 hectares) in favour of respondent Barangay Lublub, subject to the condition that the area be used for public facilities and that construction be completed within five years.
On the same date, then barangay captain Jose Militar accepted the donation on behalf of the barangay in the same public instrument.
Following the execution, the barangay immediately took possession and allowed the construction of various government buildings, including a trial court branch, a water district office, and a police mobile force station. However, the barangay failed to register the donation.
On April 12, 1989, the petitioner was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129837 covering the donated area.
Sometime in June 1989, the petitioner executed a second deed of donation in favour of the same barangay for the same property, containing identical conditions.
Later, Lot No. 1 was sold at a public auction for non-payment of real property taxes; the petitioner was the highest bidder and was awarded the property.
On May 6, 1998, the petitioner filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession (Civil Case No. 98-033), alleging the donation had ceased to be effective due to non-fulfilment of the five-year construction condition.
The barangay filed a separate complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance (Civil Case No. 00-140).
On January 3, 2002, the trial court dismissed the petitioner's complaint, ruling that the action was one for revocation and was barred by prescription. The petitioner appealed directly to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law, decided November 18, 2005.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Edgardo Dolar)

The 1981 donation is void under Article 745 of the Civil Code because the barangay captain accepted it without a formal resolution from the Sangguniang Barangay authorising him to enter into the contract. Furthermore, the donation became automatically revoked and the property reverted to him upon the barangay's failure to complete the intended public plaza within the stipulated five-year period. He also argued that the prescriptive period should be reckoned from the 1989 deed, as it was only then that he became the sole registered owner.

B. Respondent (Barangay Lublub)

The donation was validly accepted in the same public instrument, by authority granted by the barangay council. The conditions were substantially satisfied through the establishment of telephone services, water services, and a police force for the residents. The petitioner's action was essentially one for revocation of an onerous donation, which had already prescribed under the ten-year period for written contracts.

C. Common Ground

The execution of the 1981 and 1989 deeds and the physical occupation of the lot by government entities are undisputed.

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

Whether the 1981 donation was validly perfected under Article 734 of the Civil Code so as to divest the petitioner of ownership, notwithstanding the alleged lack of formal authority of the accepting official.

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

Whether the action to revoke the donation for breach of conditions under Article 764 is barred by extinctive prescription.

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

YES.

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

YES — the action is barred.

FALLO. "WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

Contractual perfection (Art. 734). The Court defined an inter vivos donation as "a gratuitous contract whereby the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably, of the thing given in favor of the donee." Under Article 734, the contract is perfected "only upon the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee." Because the donor and the barangay captain signed the same instrument, the donor's knowledge of the acceptance was simultaneous with the execution.
Validation through ratification. Regarding the challenge to the official's authority under Article 745, the Court ruled that the petitioner was not the proper party to invoke the punong barangay's alleged ultra vires act. More importantly, the Sangguniang Barangay "by availing themselves of such benefits for more than two decades now, effectively ratified Militar's acceptance of the donation."
Transmission of title (Art. 712). Upon perfection and the subsequent delivery (tradition) through the execution of a public instrument and actual possession, the barangay became the owner. The Court applied nemo dat qui non habet to rule that the 1989 deed was "of little moment" because, at that time, the property was "no longer his to donate."
Prescription of revocation (Art. 764 vs. Art. 1144). An action for quieting of title is available only if there is a cloud on a "valid or effective" title. Here the barangay's claim proceeded from a valid donation that had not been judicially revoked. Under Article 764, an action to revoke for non-compliance with conditions prescribes in four years. Even applying the more favourable ten-year period for written contracts under Article 1144, the right to sue for a breach that occurred in 1986 expired in 1996. The 1998 complaint was therefore barred.
Substantial compliance. The Court observed that the establishment of various public utilities and a trial court courtroom "substantially satisfies the terms and conditions of the subject donation."

B. Doctrines/Rules

The Rule of Cognition: A donation is not perfected by the mere act of giving; it requires reciprocal consent and the donor's actual or constructive knowledge of the donee's acceptance.
Acceptance in the Same Deed: Where acceptance is made in the same public instrument, the donation is perfected immediately, as knowledge is established by the instrument itself.
Presumption of Validity: A donation is presumed valid, and the burden of proving a lack of capacity or authority rests on the party alleging it.
Automatic Reversion Clause: While a stipulation for automatic reversion upon breach is valid and revokes the donation without need of a judicial act, if the donee disputes the rescission, "then only the final award of the court can … conclusively settle whether the resolution is proper or not."

C. Limitations/Exceptions

The Court clarified that while prescription generally does not run against registered land, that rule "presupposes a Torrens title lawfully acquired." It cannot be used to protect a title acquired in a "dubious manner" over property previously donated.
The prescription holding did not depend on choosing between Article 764's four years and Article 1144's ten: the suit was late on either measure.

D. Topic Integration

This case is DIRECTLY illustrative of "perfection of donation (Art. 734)." It is a warning that the issuance of a TCT in the donor's name after a perfected donation does not restore ownership.
It confirms that the moment of perfection under Article 734, combined with tradition, permanently divests the donor of the right to dispose, making the 1981 execution the only relevant point for determining the parties' rights.
Under its second assignment — Article 764, remedy of the donor — it teaches that the remedy is time-barred and judicial: a donor who waits twelve years, and who dresses a revocation claim as an action to quiet title, loses on both counts.

VII. Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 734, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership), Title III (Donation), Chapter 1 (Nature of Donations)

The donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee. (623)

Why it is cited here

The article the case is assigned to, applied in its simplest and most common configuration.

"The donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee."

The theory of cognition ordinarily raises a question of proof: when did the donor learn of the acceptance? Where acceptance is in a separate instrument, Article 749 requires notice in authentic form and notation in both documents, and Lagazo v. Court of Appeals shows what happens when that machinery is not followed.

Here the question answered itself. The donor and the punong barangay signed the same instrument, so the donor's knowledge of the acceptance was simultaneous with execution. Perfection occurred on 16 September 1981 and needed no further step.

The Court's definition of the transaction is worth memorising: an inter vivos donation is "a gratuitous contract whereby the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably, of the thing given in favor of the donee." At present and irrevocably — which is why everything Dolar did afterwards was beside the point.

Civil Code

Article 712, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership)

Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation.

Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition.

They may also be acquired by means of prescription. (609a)

Why it is cited here

Why a certificate of title in the donor's own name did not put the land back in his hands.

Ownership is transmitted "in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition." Perfection under Article 734 plus tradition — here both the execution of a public instrument and the barangay's actual entry and construction — completed the transfer in 1981.

From that point the maxim nemo dat qui non habet governs everything Dolar did. The 1989 second deed of donation was "of little moment," the property being "no longer his to donate"; and taking out TCT No. T-129837 in his own name in April 1989 conveyed nothing either, because a certificate evidences title rather than creating it.

The Court added a limit on the usual protection of registered land, and it is a good one to carry: the rule that prescription does not run against registered land "presupposes a Torrens title lawfully acquired," and cannot shield a title obtained in a "dubious manner" over property already donated.

Civil Code

Article 745, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership), Title III (Donation), Chapter 2 (Persons Who May Give or Receive a Donation)

The donee must accept the donation personally, or through an authorized person with a special power for the purpose, or with a general and sufficient power; otherwise, the donation shall be void. (630)

Why it is cited here

The provision Dolar attacked the acceptance with, and the two answers that defeated him.

"The donee must accept the donation personally, or through an authorized person with a special power for the purpose, or with a general and sufficient power; otherwise, the donation shall be void."

His argument was clean on paper: the punong barangay accepted without a resolution of the Sangguniang Barangay authorising him, so the acceptance was unauthorised and the donation void.

The Court refused it twice over. Standing — the donor is not the proper party to complain of the punong barangay's alleged ultra vires act, which is the barangay's grievance if it is anyone's. And ratification — the Sangguniang Barangay, "by availing themselves of such benefits for more than two decades now, effectively ratified Militar's acceptance of the donation."

The practical rule: a defect in the authority to accept is curable by the principal's conduct, and twenty years of occupying the land and putting public buildings on it is about as clear a ratification as conduct can supply.

Civil Code

Article 764, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership), Title III (Donation), Chapter 4 (Revocation and Reduction of Donations)

The donation shall be revoked at the instance of the donor, when the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions which the former imposed upon the latter.

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 Land Registration laws.

This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncompliance with the condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be exercised against the donee's heirs. (647a)

Why it is cited here

The second assignment this case carries — the remedy of the donor — and the case is mostly a lesson in how to lose it.

Revocation lies "when the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions which the former imposed upon the latter," and the action "must be brought within four years from the non-compliance with the condition."

Dolar had a real grievance in principle: the deed required the public facilities to be built within five years, so any breach crystallised around 1986. But he did not sue until 1998 — twelve years later. Even on the more generous ten-year period for written contracts under Article 1144, his right expired in 1996.

Three further points the case settles about the donor's remedy:

- Characterisation is not optional. He styled his suit quieting of title, but quieting is available only against a cloud on a valid or effective title, and the barangay's claim came from a donation never judicially revoked. In substance the action was one for revocation, and it took revocation's prescriptive period with it. - Substantial compliance can defeat the ground. Telephone and water services, a police mobile force station and a courtroom "substantially satisfies the terms and conditions of the subject donation." - Automatic reversion clauses still yield to the courts when contested. Such a stipulation revokes without a judicial act, but if the donee disputes the rescission, "then only the final award of the court can … conclusively settle whether the resolution is proper or not."

Cited laws & provisions

Article 734, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership), Title III (Donation), Chapter 1 (Nature of Donations)

The donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee. (623)

Why it is cited here

The article the case is assigned to, applied in its simplest and most common configuration.

"The donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee."

Full entry below ↓

Article 712, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership)

Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation.

Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition.

They may also be acquired by means of prescription. (609a)

Why it is cited here

Why a certificate of title in the donor's own name did not put the land back in his hands.

Full entry below ↓

Article 745, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership), Title III (Donation), Chapter 2 (Persons Who May Give or Receive a Donation)

Why it is cited here

The provision Dolar attacked the acceptance with, and the two answers that defeated him.

His argument was clean on paper: the punong barangay accepted without a resolution of the Sangguniang Barangay authorising him, so the acceptance was unauthorised and the donation void.

Full entry below ↓

Article 764, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book III (Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership), Title III (Donation), Chapter 4 (Revocation and Reduction of Donations)

The donation shall be revoked at the instance of the donor, when the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions which the former imposed upon the latter.

This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncompliance with the condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be exercised against the donee's heirs. (647a)

Why it is cited here

The second assignment this case carries — the remedy of the donor — and the case is mostly a lesson in how to lose it.

Three further points the case settles about the donor's remedy:

Full entry below ↓

Facts

On September 16, 1981, petitioner Edgardo Dolar and Serafin Jaranilla executed a deed of donation over Lot No. 1 (4.6 hectares) in favour of respondent Barangay Lublub, on condition that the area be used for public facilities and that construction be completed within five years.
On the same date, then barangay captain Jose Militar accepted the donation for the barangay in the same public instrument. (Because donor and donee signed one document, the donor's knowledge of the acceptance was simultaneous with execution — perfection under Article 734 happened that day and needed nothing further.)
The barangay immediately took possession and allowed the construction of government buildings, including a trial court branch, a water district office and a police mobile force station, but failed to register the donation. Decades of occupying the land and putting public buildings on it is what later ratified any defect in the captain's authority to accept.
On April 12, 1989, the petitioner was issued TCT No. T-129837 covering the donated area; in June 1989 he executed a second deed of donation to the same barangay over the same property on identical conditions. (He had parted with the land in 1981, so the second deed was "of little moment" and the certificate evidenced a title he no longer held.)
Lot No. 1 was later sold at public auction for non-payment of realty taxes, and the petitioner was the highest bidder and was awarded the property.
On May 6, 1998, the petitioner filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession (Civil Case No. 98-033), alleging the donation had ceased to be effective for non-fulfilment of the five-year construction condition; the barangay filed a separate complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance (Civil Case No. 00-140). The five-year period expired around 1986, so a revocation action had to be brought long before 1998 — twelve years is fatal on any view of the period.
On January 3, 2002, the trial court dismissed the petitioner's complaint, ruling that the action was one for revocation and was barred by prescription; he appealed directly to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law, decided November 18, 2005.

Issue

Whether the 1981 donation was validly perfected under Article 734 so as to divest the petitioner of ownership, notwithstanding the alleged lack of formal authority of the accepting official.

Secondary issue. Whether the action to revoke the donation for breach of conditions under Article 764 is barred by extinctive prescription.

Ruling

The petition was DENIED for lack of merit, with costs against petitioner.

"A donation … is a gratuitous contract whereby the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably, of the thing given in favor of the donee."

Ratio

Contractual perfection. An inter vivos donation is "a gratuitous contract whereby the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably, of the thing given in favor of the donee," and under Article 734 the contract is perfected "only upon the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee." Donor and barangay captain having signed the same instrument, that knowledge was simultaneous with execution.
Validation through ratification. On the challenge to the official's authority under Article 745, the petitioner was not the proper party to invoke the punong barangay's alleged ultra vires act; and the Sangguniang Barangay "by availing themselves of such benefits for more than two decades now, effectively ratified Militar's acceptance of the donation."
Transmission of title. Upon perfection and the subsequent tradition through a public instrument and actual possession, the barangay became the owner under Article 712. By nemo dat qui non habet, the 1989 deed was "of little moment" because the property was "no longer his to donate."
Prescription of revocation. Quieting of title lies only against a cloud on a "valid or effective" title; the barangay's claim came from a valid, unrevoked donation, so the suit was in substance one for revocation. Under Article 764 that prescribes in four years, and even on the ten-year period of Article 1144 the right to sue on a 1986 breach expired in 1996.
Substantial compliance. The establishment of public utilities and a trial court courtroom "substantially satisfies the terms and conditions of the subject donation."

Doctrine

The rule of cognition: a donation is not perfected by the mere act of giving; it requires reciprocal consent and the donor's actual or constructive knowledge of the donee's acceptance.
Acceptance in the same deed: where acceptance is made in the same public instrument, the donation is perfected immediately, knowledge being established by the instrument itself.
Presumption of validity: a donation is presumed valid, and the burden of proving lack of capacity or authority rests on the party alleging it — and a defect in authority may be cured by the principal's ratification through conduct.
Automatic reversion clauses: such a stipulation revokes the donation without need of a judicial act, but if the donee disputes the rescission, "then only the final award of the court can … conclusively settle whether the resolution is proper or not."
Substance controls the caption: a suit that is in reality one for revocation carries revocation's prescriptive period, whatever it is called.

Assigned twice. The syllabus lists this case under a. Nature of Donations — Perfection of donation (Art. 734) and again under d. Revocation and Reduction — Failure to comply with conditions (Art. 764): remedy of donor. Both assignments are answered from the single digest below — the supra entry re-uses this holding rather than adding a new one. The two headings track the case's two halves: when the donation became binding (1981, on simultaneous acceptance), and what the donor could still do about it afterwards (nothing, the four-year window having closed by 1990 and the ten-year one by 1996).

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

Relationship to requested topic: DIRECT.

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

On September 16, 1981, petitioner Edgardo Dolar and Serafin Jaranilla executed a deed of donation covering Lot No. 1 (4.6 hectares) in favour of respondent Barangay Lublub, subject to the condition that the area be used for public facilities and that construction be completed within five years.
On the same date, then barangay captain Jose Militar accepted the donation on behalf of the barangay in the same public instrument.
Following the execution, the barangay immediately took possession and allowed the construction of various government buildings, including a trial court branch, a water district office, and a police mobile force station. However, the barangay failed to register the donation.
On April 12, 1989, the petitioner was issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129837 covering the donated area.
Sometime in June 1989, the petitioner executed a second deed of donation in favour of the same barangay for the same property, containing identical conditions.
Later, Lot No. 1 was sold at a public auction for non-payment of real property taxes; the petitioner was the highest bidder and was awarded the property.
On May 6, 1998, the petitioner filed a complaint for Quieting of Title and Recovery of Possession (Civil Case No. 98-033), alleging the donation had ceased to be effective due to non-fulfilment of the five-year construction condition.
The barangay filed a separate complaint for Cancellation of Title and Reconveyance (Civil Case No. 00-140).
On January 3, 2002, the trial court dismissed the petitioner's complaint, ruling that the action was one for revocation and was barred by prescription. The petitioner appealed directly to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law, decided November 18, 2005.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Edgardo Dolar)

B. Respondent (Barangay Lublub)

C. Common Ground

The execution of the 1981 and 1989 deeds and the physical occupation of the lot by government entities are undisputed.

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

Whether the action to revoke the donation for breach of conditions under Article 764 is barred by extinctive prescription.

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

YES.

B. SECONDARY ISSUES

YES — the action is barred.

FALLO. "WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

Contractual perfection (Art. 734). The Court defined an inter vivos donation as "a gratuitous contract whereby the donor divests himself, at present and irrevocably, of the thing given in favor of the donee." Under Article 734, the contract is perfected "only upon the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee." Because the donor and the barangay captain signed the same instrument, the donor's knowledge of the acceptance was simultaneous with the execution.
Validation through ratification. Regarding the challenge to the official's authority under Article 745, the Court ruled that the petitioner was not the proper party to invoke the punong barangay's alleged ultra vires act. More importantly, the Sangguniang Barangay "by availing themselves of such benefits for more than two decades now, effectively ratified Militar's acceptance of the donation."
Transmission of title (Art. 712). Upon perfection and the subsequent delivery (tradition) through the execution of a public instrument and actual possession, the barangay became the owner. The Court applied nemo dat qui non habet to rule that the 1989 deed was "of little moment" because, at that time, the property was "no longer his to donate."
Prescription of revocation (Art. 764 vs. Art. 1144). An action for quieting of title is available only if there is a cloud on a "valid or effective" title. Here the barangay's claim proceeded from a valid donation that had not been judicially revoked. Under Article 764, an action to revoke for non-compliance with conditions prescribes in four years. Even applying the more favourable ten-year period for written contracts under Article 1144, the right to sue for a breach that occurred in 1986 expired in 1996. The 1998 complaint was therefore barred.
Substantial compliance. The Court observed that the establishment of various public utilities and a trial court courtroom "substantially satisfies the terms and conditions of the subject donation."

B. Doctrines/Rules

The Rule of Cognition: A donation is not perfected by the mere act of giving; it requires reciprocal consent and the donor's actual or constructive knowledge of the donee's acceptance.
Acceptance in the Same Deed: Where acceptance is made in the same public instrument, the donation is perfected immediately, as knowledge is established by the instrument itself.
Presumption of Validity: A donation is presumed valid, and the burden of proving a lack of capacity or authority rests on the party alleging it.
Automatic Reversion Clause: While a stipulation for automatic reversion upon breach is valid and revokes the donation without need of a judicial act, if the donee disputes the rescission, "then only the final award of the court can … conclusively settle whether the resolution is proper or not."

C. Limitations/Exceptions

The Court clarified that while prescription generally does not run against registered land, that rule "presupposes a Torrens title lawfully acquired." It cannot be used to protect a title acquired in a "dubious manner" over property previously donated.
The prescription holding did not depend on choosing between Article 764's four years and Article 1144's ten: the suit was late on either measure.

D. Topic Integration

This case is DIRECTLY illustrative of "perfection of donation (Art. 734)." It is a warning that the issuance of a TCT in the donor's name after a perfected donation does not restore ownership.
It confirms that the moment of perfection under Article 734, combined with tradition, permanently divests the donor of the right to dispose, making the 1981 execution the only relevant point for determining the parties' rights.
Under its second assignment — Article 764, remedy of the donor — it teaches that the remedy is time-barred and judicial: a donor who waits twelve years, and who dresses a revocation claim as an action to quiet title, loses on both counts.

VII. Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD.