After reading Is the Transfer of Ownership from the Subdivision Owner-Developer to the Local Government Automatic? read also On The Relationship of The Homeowners’ Association with Local Government Units and National Government Agencies
-
Associations are encouraged to actively cooperate with the Local Government Units (LGUs) and the National Government Agencies (NGAs)
-
Where the LGUs lack resources to provide for basic services, the associations shall endeavor to tap the means to provide the same
-
NGAs shall consult the associations where proposed rules, projects and/or programs may affect their welfare
H ow can a subdivision owner- developer transfer a title to the local government?
For a better understanding, let us take the case of Heirs of Jose Mariano and Helen S. Mariano vs. City of Naga, G.R. No. 197743, March 12, 2018.
In this case, the City Heights Subdivision (Subdivision) wrote the mayor of the City of Naga (City), offering to construct the Naga City Hall within the premises of the Subdivision including the portion of the land registered in the names of Macario Mariano (Macario) and Jose A. Gimenez (Gimenez).
On August 11, 1954, the Municipal Board adopted Resolution No. 89 accepting the Subdivision’s offer of donation and its proposed contract. The Resolution also authorized the City Mayor to execute the deed of donation on the City’s behalf. However, after Resolution No. 89 was passed, the parties had different issues.
According to the City, the City Mayor of Naga, (Mayor), and the registered landowners, Macario and Gimenez, executed a Deed of Donation on August 16, 1954. In the Deed of Donation, Macario and Gimenez donated five hectares of land (subject property), two hectares of which to be used as the City Hall site, another two hectares for the public plaza, and the remaining hectare for the public market.
By virtue of said Deed, the City entered the property and began the construction of the government center. It also declared the five-hectare property in its name for tax purposes. After sometime, other government agencies and instrumentalities entered the same property and built their offices.
In contrast, the landowners asserted that their plan to donate five hectares to the City did not materialize as the contract to build the City Hall was not awarded to the Subdivision. As early as August 23, the Subdivision’s General Manager, supposedly wrote to Macario telling him to suspend the signing of the deed of donation as the Municipal Board could not agree on the specific site where the City Hall would be built. The landowners alleged that the construction contract was eventually awarded by the Bureau of Public Works (BPW) to a local contractor who won in a public bidding. The City Mayor opposed the award, arguing that he and not the BPW had the authority to initiate the public bidding for the project. The BPW, however, asserted its authority to bid out and award the contract on the ground that national funds would be used for the project. The City Mayor and the local contractor litigated the issue, with the former losing before the trial court. Afterwards, the Municipal Board adopted Resolution No. 11 dated January 20, 1959 authorizing the City Mayor to enter into a contract with local contractor for the construction of the City Hall.
The landowners claimed that on February 5, 1959, Macario and officers of the Subdivision met with City Mayor to demand the return of the five -hectare lot as the condition for the donation was not complied with. The City Mayor purportedly assured them that the city would buy the property from them. The purchase, however, did not materialize. The landowners alleged that ten years later, or on May 14, 1968, Macario wrote to Lopez Jr., instructing him to make a follow-up on the city’s payment for the subject lot. On December 2, 1971, Macario died without receiving payment from the city.
Thus, the question now is, “Was there a valid donation by the landowners of the subject property to the City of Naga?”
The Supreme Court said:
Generally, contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present. However, 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.
The Deed of Donation executed by and between the City of Naga and the landowners shows that the City Mayor signed the Deed only on August 21, 1954, or four days after it was notarized, thus he could not have acknowledged the same before the notary public on August 16, 1954. Verily, the notary public could not have certified to knowing the parties to the donation, or to their execution of the instrument, or to the voluntariness of their act. This glaring defect is fatal to the validity of the alleged donation. It is settled that a defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument.
Not being a public document, the purported Deed of Donation is void. A void or inexistent contract has no force and effect from the very beginning as if it had never been entered into. It is equivalent to nothing and is absolutely wanting in civil effects. It cannot be validated either by ratification or prescription.
Also, even under Presidential Decree No. 957, specifically Section 31, it was optional on the owner or the subdivision to donate the roads and open spaces found in the subdivision. Moreover, under Presidential Decree No. 1216, the transfer of ownership from the subdivision owner-developer to the local government is not automatic but requires a positive act from the owner developer before the city or municipality can acquire dominion over the subdivision roads such that “until and unless the roads are donated, ownership remains with the owner-developer.”
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]