Parks vs.

Province of Tarlac
Chief Justice Avanceña
G.R. No. L024190 – July 13, 1926

Plaintiff-Appellant: George Parks

Defendant-Appellees: Tarlac, Municipality of Tarlac, Concepcion Cirer, and James Hill

FACTS:
 October 18, 1910: Concepcion Cirer and James Hill, owners of parcel of Land No 2 donated it
perpetually to the municipality of Tarlac, Province of Tarlac, under certain conditions specified in
the public document which they made in the donation
o The donation was accepted by Mr. Santiago de Jesus as Tarlac’s Municipal President
o The parcel of land was later registered in the name of the municipality of Tarlac
 January 15, 1921: Cirer and Hill sold this same parcel to the plaintiff George Parks
 August 24, 1923: the municipality of Tarlac transferred the parcel to the Province of Tarlac.
Because of this transfer, they applied for and obtained the registration of the land in its name and
later on, a certificate of title was issued
 Parks alleges that since the conditions of the donation had not been complied with, he prayed that
he be declared the absolute owner of the parcel of land.
o Park’s allegations on the “conditions” – when the parcel was donated, one was to be used
exclusively for the erection of a central school and the other for a public park; work to
commence in both cases within the period of six months from the date of the ratification
by the parties of the donation
 The lower court dismissed this complaint

ISSUE:
1. W/N the title certificate issued to the province of Tarlac should be annulled/cancelled

HELD:
2. NO – the plaintiff has no right of action because of the prescriptibility of the action for the
revocation of a donation
o The sale in his favor which was made on January 15, 1921 cannot have any effect. The
parcel of land was already donated to the municipality of Tarlac, and the donation was
accepted by the latter.
o Even supposing that causes existed for the revocation of the donation, it was necessary that
either the revocation be consented by the donee (Municipality of Tarlac) or that it had been
judicially decreed. – None of these circumstances existed
o When the sale was made to Parks, Cirer and Hill were no longer the owners of the land and
could not have sold it
o The conditions imposed on the Municipality of Tarlac (park and central school) were not
complied with, however, the allegation of Parks that it is a “condition precedent” is
erroneous
 Condition Precedent – is that the acquisition of the right is not effected while said
condition is not complied with or is not deemed complied with
 Consequently, when a condition is imposed, the compliance of which cannot be
effected except when the right is deemed acquired
 In the present case, the condition of the public school to be erected and a public
park made could not be complied with except after giving effect to the donation –
the donee could not do any work on the donated land if the donation had not really
been effected; it would have been an invasion of another’s title
 o If not “condition precedent,” Parks also contends that it was a subsequent condition which
makes non-compliance thereof a sufficient cause for the revocation of the donation – THIS
IS CORRECT BUT the period for bringing an action for the revocation of the donation has
already prescribed
 The law itself recognizes the prescriptibility of the action for the revocation of a
donation:
 Five years for the revocation by the subsequent birth of children, and one year for
their revocation by reason of ingratitude
 IF no special period is provided for the prescription of the action for revocation for
noncompliance of the conditions of the donation, it is because the donation is
considered onerous and is governed by the law of contracts and the general rules
of prescription
 The period in this class of action is ten years. The action for the revocation arose
6 months after the ratification of the donation, April 19, 1911. The complaint by
Parks was presented July 5, 1924, more than 10 years after the ratification.

Ruling:
“By the virtue of the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the appellant.
So ordered.”