Dear PAO,

The owner of a lot donated a portion of his property to me. He executed a deed of donation, which led us to build a structure on it. This document required us to refrain from building a fighting cock cage on the property within 10 years and that doing so would immediately revoke the donation. This landowner said that he discovered a fighting cock cage on the property, so the donation is now revoked because of violation of its terms. He also told me that I have to pay rent if I refuse to leave. What should I do?

Troy

Dear Troy,

Assuming that there had been a violation of the terms of the said deed of donation, it could be properly revoked. In such a case, you are no longer the owner of a part of the property.

Indeed, the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, in the case of Province of Camarines Sur v. Bodega Glassware (GR 194199, March 22, 2017), stated the following:

“We repeated this ruling in Dolar v. Barangay Lublub (Now P.D. Monfort North) Municipality of Dumangas. We once again held that if a contract of donation provides for automatic rescission or reversion in case of a breach of a condition and the donee violates it or fails to comply with it, the property donated automatically reverts back to the donor without need of any judicial declaration. It is only when the donee denies the rescission or challenges its propriety that the court can intervene to conclusively settle whether the resolution was proper. This was also the import of our ruling in Zamboanga Barter Traders Kilusang Bayan, Inc. v. Plagata.

“In this case, the Deed of Donation contains a clear automatic revocation clause. xxx

“Accordingly, petitioner takes the position that when CASTEA leased the property to Bodega, it violated the conditions in the Deed of Donation and as such, the property automatically reverted to it. It even executed a Deed of Revocation. The records show that CASTEA never contested this revocation. Hence, applying the ruling in De Luna, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, Dolor and Zamboanga Barter Traders Kilusang Bayan, Inc., petitioner validly considered the donation revoked and by virtue of the automatic revocation clause, this revocation was automatic and immediate, without need of judicial intervention. Thus, the CA clearly erred in its finding that petitioner should have first filed an action for reconveyance. This contradicts the doctrine stated in the aforementioned cases and renders nugatory the very essence of an automatic revocation clause.”

When you committed a violation of the terms of the deed donation, it got revoked as a matter of course. (There is no mention of an automatic revocation clause in your question; I think that absent such clause, the donor must still file a case in court to rescind the contract.) Therefore, your ownership over the part of the lot may longer be valid. You may, however, contest this in court if you can prove that you did not violate the terms in the deed of donation.

Regarding the payment of rent, you may be compelled to pay the same as a form of damages if you refuse to vacate the property. This is in line with the aforementioned case of Province of Camarines Sur v. Bodega Glassware, to wit:

“We also affirm the grant of damages in favor of the petitioner.

“Section 17 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

“Sec. 17. Judgment. – If after trial the court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorney’s fees and costs. x x x

“Thus, the rightful possessor in an unlawful detainer case is entitled to recover damages, which refer to ‘rents’ or ‘the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises,’ or ‘fair rental value of the property’ and attorney’s fees and costs. More specifically, recoverable damages are ‘those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property.'”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]