2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW

Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

PROPERTY

CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY

The Civil Code makes it clear that patrimonial property of the State may be acquired by private
persons through prescription.

This is brought about by Article 1113, which states that all things which are within the commerce
of man are susceptible to prescription, and that property of the State or any of its subdivisions
not patrimonial in character shall not be the object of prescription. x x x Nonetheless, this does
not necessarily mean that when a piece of land is declared alienable and disposable part of the
public domain, it can already be acquired by prescription. In Heirs of Mario Malabanan v. Republic
(587 SCRA 172, 2009), the Supreme Court ruled that declaration of alienability and disposability
is not enough — there must be an express declaration that the public dominion property is no
longer intended for public service or the development of the national wealth or that the property
has been converted into patrimonial. Republic v. Rovency Realty and Development Corp., G.R.
No. 190817, January 10, 2018

The road lots in a private subdivision are private property, hence, the local government should
first acquire them by donation, purchase or expropriation, if they are to be utilized as a public
road." Otherwise, they remain to be private properties of the owner-developer.

In this case, it is undisputed that the road lot is registered under the name of Petitioner's parents.
Even the respondents did not dispute this fact. It is also undisputed that the municipal
government [of Parañaque] has not undertaken any expropriation proceedings to acquire the
subject property neither did the petitioner donate or sell the same to the municipal government.
Therefore, absent any expropriation proceedings and without any evidence that the petitioner
donated or sold the subject property to the municipal government, the same is still private
property. Gatchalian v. Flores, et al., G.R. No. 225176, January 19, 2018

Being of similar character as roads for public use, a road right-of-way (RROW) can be
considered as a property of public dominion, which is outside the commerce of man, and cannot
be leased, donated, sold, or be the object of a contract, except insofar as they may be the object
of repairs or improvements and other incidental matters.

As a property of public dominion akin to a public thoroughfare, a road right-of-way (RROW)

cannot be registered in the name of private persons under the Land Registration Law and be the

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

subject of a Torrens Title; and if erroneously included in a Torrens Title, the land involved remains
as such a property of public dominion. HI-LON Manufacturing, Inc. v. Commission on Audit, G.R.
No. 210669, August 1, 2017

OWNERSHIP

Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited along the banks of rivers. The deposit of
soil, to be considered accretion, must be: (a) gradual and imperceptible; (b) made through the
effects of the current of the water; and (c) taking place on land adjacent to the banks of rivers.

It is settled that an accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the
lot that receives such accretion is covered by a Torrens Title.

It is settled that an accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the lot
that receives such accretion is covered by a Torrens Title. Ownership of a piece of land is one
thing; registration under the Torrens system of that ownership is another. Ownership over the
accretion received by the land adjoining a river is governed by the Civil Code; imprescriptibility
of registered land is provided in the registration law.

Registration under the Land Registration and Cadastral Act does not vest or give title to the land,
but merely confirms and, thereafter, protects the title already possessed by the owner, making
it imprescriptible by occupation of third parties. But to obtain this protection, the land must be
placed under the operation of the registration laws, wherein certain judicial procedures have
been provided. Josephine Delos Reyes, et al. v. Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan, et al. G.R. No.
214587, February 26, 2018

Under Article 452 of the Civil Code, the builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to
reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land.

However, in this case, respondent’s lands were not preserved: petitioners’ construction and use
thereof in fact caused damage. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to reimbursement for
necessary expenses. Pen Development Corp., et al. v. Martinez Leyba, Inc., G.R. No. 211845,
August 9, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy that seeks to transfer or reconvey
property, wrongfully registered in another person’s name, to its rightful owner: To warrant
reconveyance of the land, the plaintiff must allege and prove, among others, ownership of the
land in dispute and the defendant’s erroneous, fraudulent or wrongful registration of the
property.

The following requisites must concur: (1) the action must be brought in the name of a person
claiming ownership or dominical right over the land registered in the name of the defendant; (2)
the registration of the land in the name of the defendant was procured through fraud or other
illegal means; (3) the property has not yet passed to an innocent purchaser for value; and (4) the
action is filed after the certificate of title had already become final and incontrovertible but within
four years from the discovery of the fraud, or not later than ten (10) years in the case of an
implied trust. Fe Yabut, et al. v. Romeo Alcantara, G.R. No. 200349, March 6, 2017

When the action for reconveyance is based on an implied or constructive trust, the prescriptive
period is ten (10) years, or it is imprescriptible if the movant is in the actual, continuous and
peaceful possession of the property involved. On the other hand, when the action for
reconveyance is based on a void deed or contract the action is imprescriptible under Article
1410 of the New Civil Code.

As long as the land wrongfully registered under the Torrens System is still in the name of the
person who caused such registration, an action in personam will lie to compel him to reconvey
the property to the real owner. Sps. Yu Hwa Ping and Mary Gaw v. Ayala Land, Inc., G.R. Nos.
173120 & 173141, July 26, 2017

Registering a piece of land under the Torrens System does not create or vest title because
registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.

Accordingly, if the inclusion of the land in the earlier registered title was a result of a mistake,
then the latter registered title will prevail. The ratio decidendi of this exception is to prevent a
title that was earlier registered, which erroneously contained a parcel of land that should not
have been included, from defeating a title that was later registered but is legitimately entitled to
the said land. A certificate of title is merely an evidence of ownership or title over the particular
property described therein. Sps. Yu Hwa Ping and Mary Gaw v. Ayala Land, Inc., G.R. Nos.
173120 & 173141, July 26, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or
uncertainty with respect to title to real property.

Originating in equity jurisprudence, its purpose is to secure “an adjudication that a claim of title
to or an interest in property, adverse to that of the complainant, is invalid, so that the
complainant and those claiming under him may be forever afterward free from any danger of
hostile claim.” In an action for quieting of title, the competent court is tasked to determine the
respective rights of the complainant and other claimants, “not only to place things in their proper
place, to make the one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other,
but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over
the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he
may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best.” Municipal Rural Bank of
Libmanan, Camarines Sur v. Virginia Ordoñez, G.R. No. 204663, September 27, 2017

In order that an action for quieting of title may prosper, the plaintiff must have legal or
equitable title to, or interest in, the property which is the subject matter of the action.

While legal title denotes registered ownership, equitable title means beneficial ownership. In the
absence of such legal or equitable title, or interest, there is no cloud to be prevented or removed.
Likewise, the plaintiff must show that the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that
purportedly casts a cloud on their title is in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie
appearance of validity or legal efficacy. Josephine Delos Reyes, et al. v. Municipality of Kalibo,
Aklan, et al. G.R. No. 214587, February 26, 2018

Equitable title is defined as a title derived through a valid contract or relation, and based on
recognized equitable principles, or the right in the party, to whom it belongs, to have the legal
title transferred to him.

In order that a plaintiff may draw to himself an equitable title, he must show that the one from
whom he derives his right had himself a right to transfer. Josephine Delos Reyes, et al. v.
Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan, et al. G.R. No. 214587, February 26, 2018

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

CO-OWNERSHIP

Before the partition of a land or thing held in common, no individual or co-owner can claim title
to any definite portion thereof. All that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or
proportionate share in the entire land or thing.

Before the partition of a land or thing held in common, no individual or co-owner can claim title
to any definite portion thereof. All that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or
proportionate share in the entire land or thing. Afael C. Uy v. Estate of Vipa Fernandez, G.R. No.
200612, April 5, 2017

Nevertheless, a co-owner could sell his undivided share in the co-owned property.

Thus, the sale by [Levi] a co-owner of his one-half undivided share in the subject property was
not necessarily void, for his right as a co-owner thereof was effectively transferred, making the
buyer [Rafael], a co-owner of the subject property. It must be stressed that the binding force of
a contract must be recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so. Afael C. Uy v. Estate of Vipa
Fernandez, G.R. No. 200612, April 5, 2017

A partition is the separation, division, and assignment of a thing held in common among those
to whom it may belong. Every act intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed
to be a partition.

On general principle, independent and in spite of the statute of frauds, courts of equity have
enforced oral partition when it has been completely or partly performed.

Regardless of whether a Parol Partition or Agreement to Partition is valid and enforceable at law,
equity will in proper cases, where the Parol Partition has actually been consummated by the
taking of possession in severalty and the exercise of ownership by the parties of the respective
portions set off to each, recognize and enforce such Parol Partition and the rights of the parties
thereunder. A Parol Partition may also be sustained on the ground that the parties thereto have
acquiesced in and ratified the partition by taking possession in severalty, exercising acts of
ownership with respect thereto, or otherwise recognizing the existence of the partition. Heirs of
Roger Jarque v. Marcial Jarque, et al., G.R. No. 196733, November 21, 2018

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

POSSESSION

Possession can be acquired not only by material occupation, but also by the fact that a thing is
subject to the action of one’s will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for
acquiring such right.

For one to be considered in possession, one need not have actual or physical occupation of every
square inch of the property at all times. Possession can be acquired by juridical acts. These are
acts to which the law gives the force of acts of possession, e.g., assignment of a caretaker over
the disputed land. Municipal Rural Bank of Libmanan, Camarines Sur v. Virginia Ordoñez, G.R.
No. 204663, September 27, 2017

When a complaint for recovery of possession is filed against a person in possession of a parcel
of land under claim of ownership, he or she may validly raise nullity of title as a defense and,
by way of counterclaim, seek its cancellation.

In Heirs of Santiago v. Heirs of Santiago (404 SCRA 193, 2003): A certificate of title issued under
an administrative proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent covering a disposable public land
within the contemplation of the Public Land Law or Commonwealth Act No. 141 is as indefeasible
as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding. Under the Land Registration
Act, title to the property covered by a Torrens Certificate becomes indefeasible after the
expiration of one year from the entry of the decree of registration. Such decree of registration is
incontrovertible and becomes binding on all persons whether or not they were notified of, or
participated in, the in rem registration process.

There is no specific provision in the Public Land Law or the Land Registration Act (Act 496), now
Presidential Decree (PD) 1529, fixing a similar one-year period within which a public land patent
can be considered open to review on the ground of actual fraud (such as that provided for in
Section 38 of the Land Registration Act, and now Section 32 of PD 1529), and clothing a public
land patent certificate of title with indefeasibility. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has
repeatedly applied Section 32 of PD 1529 to a patent issued by the Director of Lands, approved
by the Secretary of Natural Resources, under the signature of the President of the Philippines.
The date of the issuance of the patent corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in
ordinary cases. Just as the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party
entitled to it, the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grants and conveys
the land applied for to the applicant. Heirs of Cayetano Cascayan v. Sps. Oliver and Evelyn
Gumallaoi, et al., G.R. No. 211947, July 3, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

The registered owner of real property is entitled to its possession. However, the owner cannot
simply wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the property.

To recover possession, he must resort to the proper remedy, and once he chooses what action
to file, he is required to satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper. x x x In this
case, petitioner (as the plaintiff in the case below) failed to satisfy the essential requirement that
plaintiffs supposed acts of tolerance must have been present right from the start of the
possession which is later sought to be recovered. Hence, the jurisdictional requirement of
possession by mere tolerance of the vendee-owner had not been amply alleged and proven
Queen Errika L. Saddi v. Maricris Renomeron, G.R. No. 211004, August 23, 2017

Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of
ownership, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right
mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.

They constitute evidence of great weight in support of the claim of title of ownership by
prescription when considered with the actual possession of the property by the applicant.
Jenestor B. Caldito, et al. v. Isagani V. Obado, et al., G.R. No. 181596, January 30, 2017.

However, any person who claims ownership by virtue of tax declarations must also prove that
he has been in actual possession of the property.

Thus, proof that the property involved had been declared for taxation purposes for a certain
period of time, does not constitute proof of possession, nor is it proof of ownership, in the
absence of the claimant’s actual possession of said property. In the case at bar, the petitioners
[Peraltas] failed to adequately prove their possession and that of their predecessors-in-interest.
Josephine Delos Reyes, et al. v. Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan, et al. G.R. No. 214587, February
26, 2018

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

USUFRUCT

Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but the right to enjoy another's property.

While this right to enjoy the property of another temporarily includes both the jus utendi and the
jus fruendi, the owner retains the jus disponendi or the power to alienate the same.

In this case, having only the usufruct over the property, Servanda (usufructuary) may only sell
her right of usufruct over, and not the title to, Lot No. 2560. Necessarily, her successors may
acquire only such rights. Heirs of Roger Jarque v. Marcial Jarque, et al., G.R. No. 196733,
November 21, 2018

EASEMENTS

Requisites of Easement of Right-of-Way.

An entitlement to the easement of right-of-way requires that the following requisites must be
met: 1. The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to
a public highway (Art. 649, par. 1); 2. There is payment of proper indemnity (Art. 649, par. 1); 3.
The isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate (Art. 649, last par.);
and 4. The right-of-way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar
as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway
may be the shortest (Art. 650). Sps. Larry and Rosarita Williams v. Rainero A. Zerda, G.R. No.
207146, March 15, 2017

The criterion of least prejudice to the servient estate must prevail over the criterion of shortest
distance although this is a matter of judicial appreciation.

In other words, where the easement may be established on any of several tenements
surrounding the dominant estate, the one where the way is shortest and will cause the least
damage should be chosen. If having these two (2) circumstances do not concur in a single
tenement, the way which will cause the least damage should be used, even if it will not be the
shortest.” Sps. Larry and Rosarita Williams v. Rainero A. Zerda, G.R. No. 207146, March 15,
2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

The temporary easement of right-of-way under Article 656 of the Civil Code, similar to the
permanent easement of right-of-way pursuant to its Articles 649 and 650, can only be granted
after proof of compliance with the prerequisites set forth in the articles duly adduced during a
full-blown trial.

Article 656 requires proof of indispensability and receipt of payment of the proper indemnity for
the damage caused by the owner of the dominant estate before the owner of the servient estate
can be compelled to grant a temporary easement of right-of-way. AMA Land, Inc. v. Wack Wack
Residents’ Association, Inc., G.R. No. 202342, July 19, 2017

NUISANCE

The Torre de Manila is not a nuisance per se.

The Torre de Manila project cannot be considered as a “direct menace to public health or safety.”
Not only is a condominium project commonplace in the City of Manila, DMCI-PDI has, according
to the proper government agencies, complied with health and safety standards set by law.
Knights of Rizal v. DMCI Homes, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017

A nuisance per accidens is one which depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and
its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a
tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance.

It requires a determination of such circumstances as to warrant the abatement of the nuisance.

That can only be done with reasonable notice to the person alleged to be maintaining or doing
the same of the time and place of hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a
thing or act does in law constitute a nuisance per accidens. In other words, it requires a proper
appreciation of evidence before a court or tribunal rules that the property being maintained is a
nuisance per accidens. North Greenhills Association, Inc. v. Atty. Narciso Morales, G.R. No.
222821, August 9, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 9 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

DONATION

When the law requires that a contract be in some form to be valid, such requirement is absolute
and indispensable; its non-observance renders the contract void and of no effect. One such law
is Article 749 of the Civil Code.

Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public
document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges which the donee
must satisfy. The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the donor. If the
acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic
form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.

Thus, donation of real property, which is a solemn contract, is void without the formalities
specified in the foregoing provision. Article 749 of the Civil Code requires that donation of real
property must be made in a public instrument to be valid. Heirs of Jose Mariano and Helen S.
Mariano, et al. v. City of Naga, G.R. No. 197743, March 12, 2018

In order that a donation of an immovable property be valid, the following elements must be
present: (a) the essential reduction of the patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in the
patrimony of the donee; (c) the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi; (d) the
donation must be contained in a public document; and e) that the acceptance thereof be made
in the same deed or in a separate public instrument; if acceptance is made in a separate
instrument, the donor must be notified thereof in an authentic form, to be noted in both
instruments.

There is no question that the true intent of [Purificacion], the donor and the owner of the
properties in question, was to give, out of liberality the subject house and lot, which she owned,
to the petitioner. This act, was then contained in a public document, the deed having been
acknowledged before Atty. Arcillas, a Notary Public. The acceptance of the donation is made on
the same date that the donation was made and contained in the same instrument as manifested
by Mother Concepcion's signature. In fine, the remaining issue to be resolved is the capacity of
the petitioner as donee to accept the donation, and the authority of Mother Concepcion to act
on its behalf for this purpose. The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima (Peach Sisters of
Laguna), et al. v. Amando V. Alzona, et al., G.R. No. 224307, August 06, 2018

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 10 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

Under Article 737 of the Civil Code, "the donor's capacity shall be determined as of the time of
the making of the donation." By analogy, the legal capacity or the personality of the donee, or
the authority of the latter's representative, in certain cases, is determined at the time of
acceptance of the donation.

Article 738, in relation to Article 745, of the Civil Code provides that all those who are not
specifically disqualified by law may accept donations either personally or through an authorized
representative with a special power of attorney for the purpose or with a general and sufficient
power. x x x In this case, the Court finds that for the purpose of accepting the donation, the
petitioner [Peach Sisters of Laguna], which at the time of the donation is a corporation by
estoppel, is deemed vested with personality to accept, and Mother Concepcion is clothed with
authority to act on the latter's behalf. The Missionary Sisters of Our Lady of Fatima (Peach Sisters
of Laguna), et al. v. Amando V. Alzona, et al., G.R. No. 224307, August 06, 2018

A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes a thing or right gratuitously in favor
of another, who, in turn, accepts it. Like any other contract, agreement between the parties
must exist.

Consent in contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be intelligent or with an
exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it should be free; and (3) it should be
spontaneous. The parties’ intention must be clear and the attendance of a vice of consent, like
any contract, renders the donation voidable. x x x In order for a donation of property to be valid,
what is crucial is the donor’s capacity to give consent at the time of the donation. Lydia Lavarez,
et al. v. Angeles Guevarra, et al. G.R. No. 206103, March 29, 2017

A donation cannot be forced: it cannot arise from compulsion, be borne by a requirement, or

otherwise be impelled by a mandate imposed upon the donor by forces that are external to him
or her.

A donation is, by definition, “an act of liberality.” Article 725 of the Civil Code provides: Donation
is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another,
who accepts it. To be considered a donation, an act of conveyance must necessarily proceed
freely from the donor’s own, unrestrained volition. Republic v. Sps. Francisco and Carmelita
Llamas, G.R. No. 194190, January 25, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 11 of 12
 2022 BAR REVIEW CIVIL LAW
Handout No. 12
PROPERTY

Section 31’s compulsion to donate (and concomitant compulsion to accept) cannot be sustained
as valid. Not only does it run afoul of basic legal concepts; it also fails to withstand the more
elementary test of logic and common sense.

In jurisprudence, animus donandi (that is, the intent to do an act of liberality) is an indispensable
element of a valid donation, along with the reduction of the donor’s patrimony and the
corresponding increase in the donee’s patrimony. Republic v. Sps. Francisco and Carmelita
Llamas, G.R. No. 194190, January 25, 2017

An automatic revocation clause in [onerous] donations is valid. Such clause is governed by law
on contracts.

The Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of an automatic revocation clause in donations in
the case of De Luna v. Abrigo (181 SCRA 150, 1990). The Court explained the nature of automatic
revocation clauses by first identifying the three categories of donation. x x x A donation may be
simple, remuneratory or onerous. A donation is simple when the cause is the donor’s pure
liberality. It is remuneratory when the donor “gives something to reward past or future services
or because of future charges or burdens, when the value of said services, burdens or charges is
less than the value of the donation.” A donation is onerous when it is “subject to burdens,
charges, or future services equal (or more) in value than that of the thing donated.” The Court
found that the donation in De Luna was onerous as it required the donee to build a chapel, a
nursery, and a kindergarten. The Court then went on to explain that an onerous donation is
governed by the law on contracts and not by the law on donations. It is within this context that
the Court found an automatic revocation clause as valid. Province of Camarines Sur v. Bodega
Glassware, G.R. No. 194199, March 22, 2017

An automatic rescission clause effectively rescinds the contract upon breach without need of
any judicial declaration.

Article 1306 of the Civil Code allows the parties “to establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and
conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good
customs, public order or public policy.” In contracts law, parties may agree to give one or both of
them the right to rescind a contract unilaterally. This is akin to an automatic revocation clause in
an onerous donation. The jurisprudence on automatic rescission in the field of contracts law
therefore applies in an automatic revocation clause. Province of Camarines Sur v. Bodega
Glassware, G.R. No. 194199, March 22, 2017

Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76

legaledge8@gmail.com
0917 – 894 53 56
Page 12 of 12