Nagrampa v. Nagrampa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs, Dionisio Nagrampa and Tecla Collada, executed an "Onerous donation inter vivos" in 1937, donating real properties to the defendants, Julia Margate Nagrampa and Pablo Sadang. The donation was made in consideration of love and affection, and for services rendered and to be rendered by the donees. The deed stipulated that the donees would render "financial, physical and all kinds of services" to the donors. Procedural History: On July 21, 1958, the plaintiffs filed a complaint to revoke the donation, alleging that the defendant Julia Margate Nagrampa (whose husband had died) failed to render the stipulated services. They claimed that five years prior to the filing of the complaint, they demanded such services, which the defendant refused and continued to refuse. The Appeal: The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, citing Article 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which sets a four-year period for actions to revoke donations from the non-compliance. The plaintiffs appealed, contending that since the donation was onerous, it should be governed by the law on contracts, specifically Article 1144 of the Civil Code, which provides a ten-year prescriptive period for actions upon written contracts. They argued that their cause of action accrued when the defendant refused to render services.
Issue(s)
Whether the action to revoke the onerous donation is governed by the special provision on revocation of donations (Article 764, Civil Code) or by the general provisions on contracts (Article 1144, Civil Code). Whether the action to revoke the donation has prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal issued by the Court of First Instance. The Court held that the action to revoke the donation had prescribed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that onerous donations inter vivos are governed by the general provisions concerning contracts and obligations in all matters not determined by the title on donations. However, Article 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines specifically provides that actions for the revocation of such donations by reason of non-compliance with its conditions prescribe after four years counted from such non-compliance. This specific provision on revocation due to non-compliance with conditions controls over the general provisions on contracts regarding prescription periods. Therefore, the prescriptive period applicable is four years, not ten years. On Issue 2: The Court found that the plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the defendant refused to render services "five years ago" before the filing of the complaint on July 21, 1958. This refusal constituted the non-compliance with the conditions of the donation. Since the prescriptive period for revocation is four years from the non-compliance, and more than five years had elapsed from the alleged refusal until the filing of the suit, the action had clearly prescribed. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the Civil Code took effect in 1950, the prescriptive period of four years under Article 764 had fully elapsed since the Code's effectivity, as the violation occurred in 1953 and the suit was filed in 1958. Article 1116 of the Civil Code was applied, which states that if since the time this Code took effect the entire period required for prescription should elapse, the present Code shall be applicable, even though by the former laws a longer period might be required.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit to revoke an onerous donation inter vivos on the ground of prescription. The Court held that actions for the revocation of such donations by reason of non-compliance with its conditions prescribe after four years counted from such non-compliance, pursuant to Article 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Even though the Civil Code took effect in 1950, the prescriptive period of four years under Article 764 was deemed applicable because the alleged non-compliance occurred more than five years before the filing of the complaint, and the entire four-year period had elapsed since the Code's effectivity.