Clemente v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Clemente Siblings executed a Deed of Donation dated March 16, 1963, donating a one-hectare portion of their land to the Republic of the Philippines for use solely as a hospital site where a government hospital shall be constructed. The donation was accepted, and a new title was issued in the name of the Province of Quezon. Construction of a hospital building commenced but was never completed, with only the foundation remaining. In 2003, Socorro T. Clemente inquired about the hospital project and was informed by the DPWH that there were no longer plans to construct a hospital on the site due to lack of budget. Procedural History: In 2004, Socorro, as heir and successor-in-interest, filed a Complaint for Revocation of Donation, Reconveyance, and Recovery of Possession, alleging non-compliance with the condition. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case on the ground of prematurity, holding that no period was fixed for compliance and Socorro failed to pray for the fixing of a period. The RTC denied Socorro's Motion for Reconsideration. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied Socorro's appeal, ruling that as an heir of a deceased co-donor, she could not assert heirship without prior settlement of the estate and determination of heirs, thus deeming her right inchoate and the suit premature. The CA denied Socorro's Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner Salvador T. Clemente, as substituted petitioner, challenges the CA's decision, raising issues on the necessity of estate settlement for an heir to file such an action, the effect of other co-heirs not joining the suit, and whether the action was premature, prescribed, or barred by laches, considering the donation was onerous.
Issue(s)
Whether the settlement of an estate or determination of heirs is a necessary requirement before an heir of a co-owner may file an action for revocation of donation, reconveyance, and recovery of possession. Whether the failure of other co-heirs to join the petitioner in the action is a ground for dismissal, considering the action is for the benefit of all co-heirs. Whether the action is premature, or barred by prescription or laches, notwithstanding that the donation is onerous.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The Regional Trial Court is ordered to cause the cancellation of TCT No. T-51745 and the issuance of a new certificate of title in the name of the heirs of the Clemente Siblings, and to order the Republic to surrender or reconvey possession of the property to the heirs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the necessity of estate settlement and determination of heirs: The Court held that a co-heir or co-owner may bring suit without impleading all other co-owners if the suit is for the benefit of all. This principle extends to all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession, including accion de reivindicacion. The Court clarified that an heir's right in an unsettled estate is inchoate, but Article 493 of the Civil Code grants the heir the right to exercise acts of ownership, including filing an action for reconveyance of possession as a co-owner, provided the co-ownership is recognized. In this case, Socorro's prayer explicitly mentioned the "heirs of the Clemente Siblings," demonstrating recognition of co-ownership, thus obviating the need for prior estate settlement or impleading all co-heirs. On the failure of other co-heirs to join the action: The Court reiterated that Article 487 of the Civil Code allows any one of the co-owners to bring an action in ejectment, which covers all actions for recovery of possession. The suit is presumed to be instituted for the benefit of all co-owners, and a co-owner is not even a necessary party if complete relief can be afforded without their participation. Since Socorro recognized the co-ownership and the suit was for the benefit of all co-heirs, her action was validly filed without the other co-heirs being impleaded as co-plaintiffs. On prematurity, prescription, or laches: The Court found that the action was neither premature nor barred by prescription or laches. While an action for reconveyance based on a violated condition has a ten-year prescriptive period and an action to revoke a donation prescribes after four years from non-compliance, the starting point for these periods is the determination of the non-compliance. The Deed of Donation did not fix a period for compliance, and Article 1197 of the Civil Code allows courts to fix such a period if one was intended. However, given that over fifty years had passed since the donation, the reasonable period contemplated by the parties had long lapsed, rendering the fixing of a period a mere technicality. The DPWH's admission in 2003 that there were no plans to build the hospital indicated a clear intention not to fulfill the obligation, extinguishing the donee's right and giving the donor the right to revoke the donation under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. Laches did not set in because prescription cannot run when the period for compliance is uncertain, and the respondent was guilty of unreasonable delay.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner may bring an action for recovery of possession for the benefit of all co-owners without impleading all other co-owners, and the determination of heirs or settlement of estate is not a prerequisite for such action. Furthermore, an action to revoke a donation due to non-fulfillment of a resolutory condition is not premature and not barred by prescription or laches when a reasonable period for compliance has lapsed and the donee has evinced no intention to fulfill the condition.