CENTRAL PHILIPPINE UNIVERSITY vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 112127
July 17, 1995

FACTS:
In 1939, the late Don Ramon Lopez, Sr., was then a member of the Board of Trustees of
the Central Philippine College (now Central Philippine University [CPU]), executed a
deed of donation in favor of the latter of a parcel of land on the following conditions:

1. The land described shall be utilized by the CPU exclusively for the establishment and use
of a medical college with all its buildings as part of the curriculum; 2. The said college shall not sell,
transfer or convey to any third party nor in any way encumber said land; 3. The said land shall be
called "RAMON LOPEZ CAMPUS", and the said college shall be under obligation to erect a
cornerstone bearing that name. Any net income from the land or any of its parks shall be put in a fund
to be known as the "RAMON LOPEZ CAMPUS FUND" to be used for improvements of said campus
and erection of a building thereon

On 31 May 1989, private respondents, who are the heirs of Don Ramon Lopez, Sr., filed
an action for annulment of donation, alleging that since 1939 up to the time the action
was filed the latter had not complied with the conditions of the donation.
Petitioner alleged that the right of private respondents to file the action had prescribed;
that it did not violate any of the conditions in the deed of donation because it never used
the donated property for any other purpose than that for which it was intended; and, that
it did not sell, transfer or convey it to any third party.
Trial Court held that petitioner failed to comply with the obligations.
Upon appeal, the appellate court reversed the decision on the ground that the donor did
not fix a period within which the condition must be fulfilled, hence, until a period was
fixed for the fulfillment of the condition, petitioner could not be considered as having
failed to comply with its part of the bargain.

ISSUE: WON the annotations in the certificate of title of petitioner are onerous obligations and
resolutory conditions of the donation which must be fulfilled non-compliance of which would
render the donation revocable.

HELD:
We find it difficult to sustain the petition. A clear perusal of the conditions in the deed of
donation conclude that his donation was onerous, one executed for a valuable
consideration which is considered the equivalent of the donation itself, e.g., when a
donation imposes a burden equivalent to the value of the donation.
Under Art. 1181 of the Civil Code, on conditional obligations, the acquisition of rights, as
well as the extinguishment or loss of those already acquired, shall depend upon the
happening of the event which constitutes the condition. Thus, when a person donates
land to another on the condition that the latter would build upon the land a school, the
condition imposed was not a condition precedent or a suspensive condition but a
resolutory one.
If there was no fulfillment or compliance with the condition, such as what obtains in the
instant case, the donation may now be revoked and all rights which the donee may have
acquired under it shall be deemed lost and extinguished.
The claim of petitioner that prescription bars the instant action of private respondents is
unavailing.
 On the establishment of medical school upon the land, when the obligation does not fix a
period but from its nature and circumstances it can be inferred that a period was
intended, the general rule provided in Art. 1197 of the Civil Code applies, which provides
that the courts may fix the duration thereof because the fulfillment of the obligation itself
cannot be demanded until after the court has fixed the period for compliance therewith
and such period has arrived.
The general rule (Art. 1197 CC) however cannot be applied considering the different set
of circumstances existing in the instant case. More than a reasonable period of fifty (50)
years has already been allowed petitioner to avail of the opportunity to comply with the
condition even if it be burdensome, to make the donation in its favor forever valid. But,
unfortunately, it failed to do so.
Records are clear and facts are undisputed that since the execution of the deed of
donation up to the time of filing of the instant action, petitioner has failed to comply with
its obligation as donee. Petitioner has slept on its obligation for an unreasonable length
of time.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo, Br. 34, of 31 May 1991
is REINSTATED and AFFIRMED.
 SPOUSES ROMULO AND SALLY EDUARTE vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 105944
February 9, 1996

FACTS:

Pedro Calapine was the registered owner of a parcel of land located in San
Cristobal, San Pablo City.
On April 26, 1984, he executed a deed entitled Pagbibigay-Pala (Donacion Inter-Vivos)
ceding one-half portion thereof to his niece Helen S. Doria.
On July 26, 1984, another deed was executed by Pedro Calapine ceding unto Helen S.
Doria the whole of the parcel of land.
On 1986, Helen S. Doria donated a portion of 157 square meters of the parcel of land to
the Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc.
On 1988, Helen S. Doria sold, transferred and conveyed unto the spouses Romulo and
Sally Eduarte the land, save the portion of 700 square meters on which the vendors
house had been erected.
Claiming that his signature to the deed of donation was a forgery, Pedro Calapine
brought suit against Helen S. Doria, the Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc. and
the spouses Romulo and Sally Eduarte to revoke the donation made in favor of Helen S.
Doria.
Defendants spouses denied knowledge of the first deed of donation and alleged that
after the part donated to the defendant Calauan Christian Reformed Church, Inc., the
remaining portion thereof was sold to them; they prayed that the complaint against them
be dismissed; that upon their counterclaim, the plaintiff be ordered to pay them moral
and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.
The RTC ruled in favor of plaintiffs. The CA affirmed the decision of the trial court on the
ground that, having found that the signature of Pedro Calapine was forged, Helen Doria
committed an act of ingratitude which is a valid ground for revocation of the donation
made in her favor in accordance with Article 765 of the Civil Code; that petitioners are
not buyers in good faith of the donated property as they failed to exercise due diligence
in verifying the true ownership of the property despite the existence of circumstances
that should have aroused their suspicions.
Petitioners dispute the lower courts conclusion and argue that although there were other
occupants in the subject property, no adverse claim was made by the latter as they were
mere tenants therein, thus, petitioners were not obliged to make any further inquiry
because the property being sold was covered by a certificate of title under Helen Dorias
name.

ISSUE: WON petitioners acquisition of the property is a nullity.

HELD:
No. petitioners are buyers in good faith of the donated property, and therefore, it was
grave error to annul and set aside the deed of sale executed between petitioners and
donee Helen Doria.
Reliance on the doctrine that a forged deed can legally be the root of a valid title is
squarely in point in this case: Although generally a forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys
no title, however there are instances when such a fraudulent document may become the root of a valid title.
 One xxx where the certificate of title was already transferred from the name of the true owner to the forger,
and while it remained that way, the land was subsequently sold to an innocent purchaser. For then, the
vendee had the right to rely upon what appeared in the certificate. Where there was nothing in the certificate
of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon, the
purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for
any hidden defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat his right thereto. If the rule were otherwise,
the efficacy and conclusiveness of the certificate of title which the Torrens System seeks to insure would
entirely be futile and nugatory.
Although Helen Dorias title was fraudulently secured, such fact cannot prejudice the
rights of herein petitioners absent any showing that they had any knowledge or
participation in such irregularity.
Petition is GRANTED and the appealed decision is hereby MODIFIED.