January 25, 2012
HON. MICHAEL L. GALANG
HON. ARMANDO S. MANACMUL
Sangguniang Bayan Members
Floridablanca, Pampanga
Dear Messrs. Galang and Manacmul,
This pertains to your letter seeking our legal opinion on the following issues:
We deem it proper to address your query in one discussion for they are interrelated.
Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. This donation is but a contract of the donor and the donee, a gratuitous contract wherein the consideration thereof is “liberality”.
The two (2) basic classifications of donations are Mortis Causa and Inter Vivos. The former shall take effect during the lifetime of the donor, but the property shall not be delivered till after death of the donor’s death. On the other hand, inter vivos donation takes effect immediately after compliance of all the legal requirements provided by the Code. Further, donation is not obligatory. What it requires is mere acceptance of the donee and once accepted, the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property so donated. Said kind of donation, however, is true only in case of simple or unconditional donation.
In the present query, the one who donated the said property in favor to the “School” is the Municipality of Floridablanca, Pampanga by virtue of Sangguniang Bayan Resolution No. 37, series of 2005. This, to our opinion, is a valid transfer of property from the said municipality in favor to the school, provided, no favor from the donee Is requested by the donor, lest, it would be tantamount to a violation of the Anti Graft Law or RA 3019 and/or RA 6713, or the Code of Ethical Standards of Public Officers and Employees.
For purposes of discussion, one of the legal and binding effects of donation is the transfer of ownership from the donor to the donee. As provided by the New Civil Code, it one of the modes of acquiring ownership. Further, one of the essential characteristics of donation is “irrevocability” except for legal causes provided by the same Code. This simply means that donation partakes the nature of permanency, unless, there exists ground for it to be revoked. The legal grounds for revocation of donation are stated under Art. 760 of the New Civil Code i.e., Birth, Adoption and Reappearance.
In your letter, you are seeking advice whether or not your august body may enact an Ordinance to amend an Ordinance enacted by the previous administration authorizing the then Mayor to enter into a Deed of Donation. It is true that the power to enact an Ordinance carries with the power to modify, alter, revise, or even repeal it. However, in the given situation, the donation, apparently was not only perfected but accorded the status of permanency, the same not being questioned at the lapse of more than four (4) years. In effect, not only concerned parties are bound to observe it but also third persons who might have a claim over that property, such as colorable title to that realty. It is clear, however, from the letter of the incumbent Mayor, that the intended beneficiary is a “caretaker”, which means, he (icban) recognizes ownership of the landlord (school). He is residing in that property precisely due to mere tolerance by the administrator of that school. Possession, by mere tolerance of the owner, cannot ripen into “Just Ownership” save those cases of a tenant of an agricultural land.
Another reason why said contract could no longer be amended is that the present Sangguniang Bayan Members and the Local Chief Executive would be violating the “non-impairment clause” of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It must be noted that rights were already vested to the donee upon acceptance of the instrument. Such right cannot be diminished nor taken away by expedient means of enacting another ordinance or resolution for purposes of amending the Deed of Donation executed by and between the previous administration and the donee. Amending of an ordinance or resolution may only be allowed if there are valid and legal grounds.
Thus, the query whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan of Floridablanca still have the right to amend the deed of donation by passing a resolution to that effect, we opine in the negative, by reason of the above discussion. In addition to the above-stated reasons, to allow said means would set precedence to the coming administration i.e., to set the trend of revoking an ordinance which affects vested rights
However, we are recommending two (2) plausible suggestions in order to arrive at a win-win solution (the awarding of 500 sq m2) without recourse to toxic court litigation: first, for the present administration to have an audience with the School’s representative and the intended beneficiary to persuade the former to execute another deed of donation; and second, if the new owner is willing, to execute a deed of sale in favor of the intended beneficiary at a minimal amount or a lease to own. In both instances, the consideration must be the length of service rendered by the intended beneficiary to the school. A diplomatic approach, to our mind will work; thus, an intervention by the present administration may be needed.
This is without prejudice to any other opinion of higher authorities.
We hope that we have properly addressed your concerns.
Very truly yours,
(sgd.)
FLORIDA M. DIJAN, DPA, CESO IV
Regional Director
Copy Furnished:
PD Angelina S. Blanco LGOO V Norma D. Martinez
DILG Pampanga DILG Floridablanca, Pampanga
