OCTOBER 2030

GSIS vs.
Province of
Tarlac
G.R. NO. 157860,
DECEMBER 1, 2003
The People
involved
Margarita "Tingting" Gov. Jose Yap Government
de los Reyes Governor (98-07) Service Insurance
Governor (during)
Cojuangco Petitioner
System
 FACTS
On March 26, 1996, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
of Tarlac passed Resolution No. 068-96, which
authorized and approved the conversion of Urquico
Memorial Athletic Field into a Government Center,
as well as the segregation and donation of portions
of said land to different government agencies for the
purpose of constructing or relocating their office
buildings. After receiving two letters of invitation
regarding the project, the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) decided to put up an
office at the site.
 FACTS
December 13 1996, Gov. Conjuanco issued
the notice of construction for GSIS Bldg. Gov. Jose Yap was elected as the new
chief executive of Tarlac. Evidently, Gov.
Then the parties executed a Memorandum
Yap was of the opinion that the provisions
of Agreement (MOA) on December 13,
of the Deed of Donation were unfair to
1997
the Province. Later, the Provincial
Administrator wrote the GSIS,
Tarlac donated the subject land with
demanding the payment of
conditions.
GSIS paid P2,000,000.00 as it is stipulated
P33,590,000.00 representing the balance
of the value of the lot donated, which the
GSIS refused to pay.
HISTORY OF THE
CASE
Aug. 25, 1999 RTC upheld the validity of the
donation to the GSIS and dismissed the
complaint for declaration of nullity of
donation and MOA.

Province of Tarlac Appealed - CA Reversed

and set aside the decision of the RTC and
declared the MOA NULL AND VOID

Hence, the case.

 ISSUE
Whether the Deed of Donation and
Memorandum of Agreement were
null and void under Sec. 381 of the
Local Govt’ Code of 1991
 Held
The Court cited Article 1409 of the Civil Code in which a
transfer of real property by a local government unit to an
instrumentality of government without first securing an
appraised valuation from the local committee on awards
does not appear to be one of the void contracts enumerated
therein. Neither does Section 381 of the Local Government
Code expressly prohibit or declare void such transfers if an
appraised valuation from the local committee on awards is
not first obtained.
the Court of Appeals simply ruled that the absence
of a prior appraised valuation by the local
committee on awards rendered the donation null
and void. To the Court, it did not sufficiently
overcome the presumption of validity of the
contract, considering that there is no express
provision in the law which requires that the said
valuation is a condition sine qua non for the validity
of a donation.
Thank
you