Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Case Digest - Parks Vs Prov of Tarlac, 49 Phil 142

    Uploaded by

    Maxene Pigtain
    The municipality of Tarlac accepted a donation of land in 1910 from Concepcion Cirer and James Hill to build a school and parks on the condition that construction start within six months. In 1921, Cirer and Hill sold the land to George Parks. Parks sued, claiming the condition was not met. The Supreme Court ruled that the six-month construction period was not a prerequisite for the donation to take effect. It also found that the revocation action was time-barred, as the prescriptive period for donations is ten years, but the action was filed thirteen years after the alleged breach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Digest - Parks Vs Prov of Tarlac, 49 Phil 142

    Uploaded by

    Maxene Pigtain
    79 views1 page
    The municipality of Tarlac accepted a donation of land in 1910 from Concepcion Cirer and James Hill to build a school and parks on the condition that construction start within six months. In 1921, Cirer and Hill sold the land to George Parks. Parks sued, claiming the condition was not met. The Supreme Court ruled that the six-month construction period was not a prerequisite for the donation to take effect. It also found that the revocation action was time-barred, as the prescriptive period for donations is ten years, but the action was filed thirteen years after the alleged breach.

    Original Title

    Case Digest - Parks vs Prov of Tarlac, 49 Phil 142

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The municipality of Tarlac accepted a donation of land in 1910 from Concepcion Cirer and James Hill to build a school and parks on the condition that construction start within six months. In 1921, Cirer and Hill sold the land to George Parks. Parks sued, claiming the condition was not met. The Supreme Court ruled that the six-month construction period was not a prerequisite for the donation to take effect. It also found that the revocation action was time-barred, as the prescriptive period for donations is ten years, but the action was filed thirteen years after the alleged breach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    79 views1 page

    Case Digest - Parks Vs Prov of Tarlac, 49 Phil 142

    Uploaded by

    Maxene Pigtain
    The municipality of Tarlac accepted a donation of land in 1910 from Concepcion Cirer and James Hill to build a school and parks on the condition that construction start within six months. In 1921, Cirer and Hill sold the land to George Parks. Parks sued, claiming the condition was not met. The Supreme Court ruled that the six-month construction period was not a prerequisite for the donation to take effect. It also found that the revocation action was time-barred, as the prescriptive period for donations is ten years, but the action was filed thirteen years after the alleged breach.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Maxene Joi A.

    Pigtain
    LAW1101- Sec 16

    Parks vs Prov of Tarlac, 49 Phil 142


    G.R. No. L-24190, July 13, 1926
    AVANCEÑA, C. J.:

    FACTS:

    Concepcion Cirer and James Hill donated land to the municipality of Tarlac in 1910 on the
    condition that it be used completely and solely for the construction of a central school and public
    parks, with construction to begin within six months. The donation was approved and registered
    by the president of the municipality of Tarlac. Cirer and Hill sold the same land to George L.
    Parks in 1921. The municipality of Tarlac later transferred their property rights to the Province of
    Tarlac.

    Parks filed a lawsuit, demanding that the donation be withdrawn and that he be declared the sole
    owner of the land. The terms of the donation, according to Parks, were not observed.

    ISSUE:

    Is there a condition precedent a


    ttached to the donation? W/N has the revocation action been prescribed?

    RULING:

    No, the obligation to build a school within six months is not a prerequisite. A condition
    precedent is characterized as a condition that prohibits the acquisition of a right from taking
    place while the condition is not met or is not deemed met. Meanwhile nothing is acquired and
    there is only an expectancy of a right. As a consequence, if a condition is enforced that cannot be
    fulfilled before the right is considered obtained, the condition cannot be a condition precedent.
    The requirement that a public school and a public park be established on the donated land could
    not be met in this case unless the donation was given effect to first.

    The process for revocation of the donation has been developed. The prescriptive periods are: 5
    years for revocation due to subsequent childbirth, and 1 year for revocation due to ingratitude. If
    no special duration is defined, the law of contracts and general rules on prescriptions apply to an
    onerous donation for a period of ten years. The gift was made in 1910, the cause of action
    occurred in 1911, and the revocation action was lodged twenty-three years later, in 1924.

    You might also like