G.R. No. 194199 - PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR LUIS RAYMUND F. VILLAFUERTE, JR., VS., BODEGA GLASSWARE, REPRESENTED BY ITS OWNER JOSEPH D. CABRAL.

Ruling

Wherefore, the foregoing premises considered, plaintiff having established by preponderance of evidence its cause of action against the defendant, the latter is ordered: 1) To immediately vacate and surrender to plaintiff, Province of Camarines Sur, the peaceful possession of the portion of the land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 22 registered in the name of the plaintiff with an area of Six Hundred (600) square meters subject of the lease contract executed by CASTEA in favor of the herein defendant dated 7 September 1995 where the defendants (sic) building is constructed, and, 2) [T]o pay plaintiff the amount of Php15,000.00 a month from date of judicial demand until it vacates the subject properties as reasonable compensation for the use of the same. Defendant's counterclaim is hereby ordered DISMISSED with costs against defendant. [20] Bodega appealed this Decision to the RTC Naga City which reversed it in a Decision [21] dated May 13, 2009. The dispositive portion states: WHEREFORE premises considered, the decision of the court a quo is hereby reversed and set aside and a new one entered DISMISSING the above case for failure of the plaintiff to present evidence to sustain its cause of action[.] [22] The petitioner then went up on appeal to the CA which rendered the now assailed Decision. The CA disposed of the appeal thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby DENIED . The Decision dated May 13, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Naga City is hereby AFFIRMED . [23] In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC Naga City that the petitioner cannot demand that Bodega vacate the property. The CA explained that Bodega 's possession of the property is based on its Contract of Lease with CASTEA. CASTEA, in tum, claims ownership of the property by virtue of the Deed of Donation. According to the CA, while petitioner alleges that CASTEA violated the conditions of the donation and thus, the automatic revocation clause applies, it should have first filed an action for reconveyance of the property against CASTEA. The CA theorized that judicial intervention is necessary to ascertain if the automatic revocation clause suffices to declare the donation revoked. In support of its argument, the CA cited the ruling of this Court in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals. [24] The CA also found that petitioner's action has already prescribed. According to it, Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code applies in this case. Thus, petitioner had 10 years to file an action for reconveyance from the time the Deed of Donation was violated. As the Contract of Lease was entered into on September 1, 1995, petitioner, thus, had 10 years from this date to file the action. Unfortunately, the action for unlawful detainer was filed more than 12 years later. Further, the CA added that even the revocation of the donation was done beyond the 10-year prescriptive period. The CA also denied petitioner ' s motion fo