Validity of Use Restrictions and Church–State Issues (Philippine Legal Article)

1) The typical fact pattern—and why it gets legally tricky

A landowner wants to donate a parcel to the barangay, with the understanding (often written into the deed) that the land will be used to build and maintain a chapel. The donor may also want restrictions like:

“For chapel purposes only” / “exclusive use as chapel”
“No sale, transfer, mortgage, or lease”
“If no longer used as a chapel, the land reverts to the donor/heirs”
“Barangay must construct the chapel within X years”

This touches two major legal zones:

Private law of donations and property (Civil Code + land registration practice)
Public law limits on LGUs and religious establishment (Constitution + Local Government rules + public accountability norms)

A donation can be perfectly valid as a private conveyance—yet still produce serious problems once the donee is a government unit and the intended use is religious.

2) Who can own land and accept a donation: the barangay as donee

A barangay is a local government unit (LGU) and a juridical entity for purposes of owning property and entering transactions, acting through its officials and the Sangguniang Barangay. In practice:

The Punong Barangay typically signs contracts and deeds with authority/authorization from the Sangguniang Barangay (often via a resolution).
For land transactions, acceptance is generally expected to be supported by an official act (resolution/authority), and the barangay must show capacity to assume any “charges” (modes/conditions) attached to the donation.

Key practical point: A deed of donation to an LGU that is signed without proper authority/acceptance documentation can be attacked later as unauthorized or irregular, and may be hard to register or audit-proof.

3) The Civil Code basics: how a donation of land must be made

A donation of immovable property (land) must comply with formal requirements. The core rules:

A. Form: Public instrument

The donation must be in a public instrument (not merely private writing). The deed should identify:

the property (TCT number, technical description, boundaries)
the donor and donee
the charges/conditions/restrictions (if any)

B. Acceptance is essential

A donation of immovable property is not perfected without the donee’s acceptance. Acceptance must be:

in the same public instrument, or
in a separate public instrument, with notice to the donor in an authentic form.

If acceptance is defective, the donation can fail even if everyone “intended” it.

C. Registration and transfer of title

For Torrens-titled land, the deed is submitted to:

the Register of Deeds for annotation/issuance of new title in the name of the barangay (or the city/municipality if that is the proper owning entity in local practice), and
the Assessor for tax declaration updates (as applicable).

Registration is where restrictions (like reversion) become most important, because properly annotated restrictions are harder for later officials to ignore.

4) “Use restrictions” in donations: what kinds exist, and are they enforceable?

In Philippine civil law, restrictions in a donation are usually structured as:

A mode (also called a charge/burden) – the donee must do or maintain something (e.g., “build a chapel within 3 years” or “maintain as chapel”)
A condition (often resolutory) – if a future event occurs or fails (e.g., “if not used as chapel, donation is revoked / property reverts”)
A prohibition – “donee may not sell/encumber”

Each behaves differently.

4.1 Mode/charge (“The barangay must use it as a chapel”)

A mode is generally valid so long as it is not impossible, unlawful, or contrary to morals/public order/public policy. If the donee accepts, it is bound.

Enforcement: If the donee violates the mode, the donor (or heirs, depending on drafting and succession issues) can seek revocation/rescission and/or reconveyance, subject to proof and procedural defenses.

Drafting tip: Put the “mode” in operational terms:

What counts as “chapel use”?
Is multi-purpose use allowed?
Who maintains? Who insures?
What happens if destroyed by calamity?

4.2 Resolutory condition with reversion (“If not used as chapel, it reverts”)

This is usually the most effective structure for donors who want long-term control.

A typical resolutory clause:

“So long as the property is used for [specified purpose]; otherwise, ownership reverts to donor.”

Validity: Generally acceptable in donations—unless the underlying purpose or restriction violates law/public policy (see church–state discussion below).

Registrability: Reversionary clauses should be clearly stated and annotated on the title; otherwise, subsequent good-faith reliance by third parties can complicate enforcement.

Reality check: If the barangay later treats the land as public patrimonial property and disposes of it, a donor without an annotated reversion clause may face an uphill fight against third-party registrants.

4.3 Prohibitions on sale/encumbrance (“Barangay may never sell this”)

Absolute, perpetual restraints on alienation are legally sensitive. Philippine civil law tends to disfavor unreasonable restraints that freeze property forever. Still, donors often include them, and they can have practical force—especially for government donees—when paired with reversion.

Best practice: Instead of relying only on “no sale ever,” use:

a reversion clause (resolutory condition), and/or
a requirement that any disposition (if ever allowed) must meet strict conditions and donor/heirs consent (though consent mechanics can be problematic over generations), and
title annotation.

5) Donation revocation concepts donors should understand

Even a valid donation is not always irreversible.

A. Revocation for non-compliance with charges/conditions

If the donation is burdened and the donee does not comply, the donor may sue to revoke/rescind, depending on the clause and the governing Civil Code provisions. This becomes fact-heavy:

Was there breach?
Was there substantial performance?
Was delay excused?
Did the donor waive by tolerance?

B. Revocation for ingratitude

Separate from “breach,” the Civil Code also recognizes revocation for specific acts of ingratitude (a narrower, enumerated concept). This is rarely the right tool for purpose-restriction disputes, but it exists.

C. Effects of revocation

If revocation is granted:

title may be ordered reconveyed,
improvements raise complex issues (ownership, reimbursement, accession, good faith, and public use considerations).

When the improvement is a religious structure used by the community, courts may be cautious and equitable considerations may loom large. That is why careful drafting and early compliance matter.

6) The biggest issue: Can a barangay accept land “for a chapel” without violating church–state limits?

This is where private donation logic collides with constitutional and public law constraints.

6.1 The constitutional framework in plain terms

Philippine constitutional doctrine strongly protects religious freedom, while also embracing a principle of separation of Church and State. Alongside that is a crucial fiscal/asset rule: public money or property must not be used to support any religion/sect, subject to narrow recognized exceptions (e.g., certain chaplaincy contexts).

Why this matters: If land becomes barangay property, it is public property. Using it as the site of a denominational chapel can be characterized as government support of religion, especially if:

the chapel is for a specific sect/denomination,
the church has exclusive control,
the public gets no neutral, secular government purpose in return,
the arrangement is free or preferential.

6.2 A donation is “private”—so why would the Constitution care?

Because once accepted, the government unit is:

holding and managing public assets, and
making an official decision to dedicate public property to religious use.

Even if the donor is private, the state action is the barangay’s acceptance and dedication of property.

6.3 Risk factors that make it look unconstitutional or improper

These features increase legal vulnerability:

Denominational exclusivity
- “Roman Catholic chapel,” “Iglesia chapel,” etc., as the stated exclusive purpose.
Preferential treatment
- Free land, free construction funds, free utilities, or exclusive long-term occupation without fair compensation or neutral access.
Barangay spending on the chapel
- If the barangay uses appropriated funds for construction/repair, the risk escalates sharply (audit/COA, administrative and criminal exposure questions may arise).
Control handed to a religious organization
- If a parish effectively controls public land as if it were private church property.

6.4 Is any religious use of public property automatically forbidden?

Not necessarily. The legal risk depends on structure and neutrality. A few approaches that are generally less problematic in principle:

Neutral accommodation / non-exclusive access (e.g., a community facility open to various groups under neutral rules, without endorsement)
Lease at fair value to a religious group under standard government leasing rules (still sensitive, but materially different from a gift/endorsement; also requires procurement/authorization compliance and equal access principles)
Donation to the religious organization directly (no public property created; the church owns it)

But a pure “barangay land for a chapel” arrangement is usually the highest-risk version.

7) Local Government Code realities: “public purpose” and barangay powers

LGUs are expected to act for public purpose and within delegated authority. A chapel devoted to one faith can be challenged as not being a proper “public purpose” of a barangay as a government entity.

Even where the community is overwhelmingly of one religion, government units are expected to avoid actions that appear to establish, endorse, or subsidize a religion.

8) Structuring options to reduce legal and governance risk

If the real goal is “a chapel for the community,” the legal path chosen matters more than the sentiment behind it.

Option A (often the cleanest): Donate directly to the church or religious corporation

Donor transfers land to the parish/diocese/recognized religious corporation (or a religious foundation).
The chapel is clearly private religious property, subject to usual permits and zoning.
No church–state asset problem because it is not public land.

Watch-outs: corporate capacity, proper corporate signatories, internal church requirements, and land use classification issues.

Option B: Donate to the barangay for a secular community facility, with allowable incidental religious use

If the donee must be the barangay, consider reframing the principal purpose as a secular public facility (community center, multi-purpose hall, evacuation site) and adopt written policies allowing neutral use by groups (including religious groups) under non-discriminatory scheduling rules.

This is still sensitive, but it aligns the asset with a clear barangay function.

Drafting idea:

Primary use: barangay/community center
Incidental use: gatherings, including religious services, on equal-access terms
No denominational signage as an official government endorsement
Maintenance funded as a community facility, not as a sectarian structure

Option C: Keep ownership private; grant the barangay a limited right (or vice versa)

Instead of a donation of ownership to the barangay:

donor retains title and grants a usufruct or lease to a church entity; or
donor donates to a church but grants the barangay limited access easements for community use (if desired).

This avoids converting the parcel into a public religious site.

Option D: Tripartite arrangement with careful boundaries (high complexity)

A deed that tries to make the barangay a “trustee” for a religious purpose is typically risky and complicated. Government trusteeship for a sectarian end can itself be attacked as unconstitutional/public policy–violative. If pursued, it demands unusually careful design and still carries risk.

9) Land classification and permitting issues people forget

Even a perfect deed can be derailed by land use law:

Agricultural land: converting to institutional use may require DAR conversion clearance or compliance with agrarian restrictions (especially if covered by agrarian reform history or tenancy issues).
Zoning/CLUP: the parcel must be in a zone that allows the intended structure.
Building permits: chapel/community building requires permits, plans, and safety compliance.
Right-of-way/access: a landlocked donated parcel invites disputes; provide easements expressly.

10) Tax and fee considerations (high-level)

Transactions involving donations can trigger documentary requirements and taxes/fees, depending on status of donor/donee and the nature of the transfer. Donations to government units for public purposes may have favorable treatment in some contexts, but “public purpose” becomes a question if the property is for a denominational chapel.

Even when exempt, registration typically requires:

BIR-related clearances or certifications as applicable,
local transfer-related documentation,
proof of authority and acceptance for the government donee.

Because tax treatment is fact-specific and can change by regulation, the safe approach is to treat taxes and clearances as an integral part of transaction planning rather than an afterthought.

11) Drafting checklist: what a robust deed usually needs

If proceeding with a barangay as donee (notwithstanding the church–state risks), the deed and attachments typically should cover:

Exact purpose definition
- Is it strictly a “chapel,” or a “multi-purpose community facility”?
Timeline
- Must construction begin/finish within X months/years?
Maintenance responsibility
- Who pays for upkeep, insurance, utilities?
Control and access
- Who manages scheduling and use?
- Is access neutral or exclusive to a denomination?
Reversion clause (if donor insists on long-term purpose control)
- clear triggers (“non-use for X continuous months,” “use changed,” “demolition without rebuilding”)
- procedure for declaring reversion
- annotation on title
Prohibition/limits on disposition
- tie it to reversion rather than absolute perpetual restraint alone
Authority and acceptance documents
- Sangguniang Barangay resolution authorizing acceptance and the Punong Barangay to sign
- acceptance in the deed or in a separate notarized instrument with proper notice
Compliance clause
- parties acknowledge constitutional/public policy limits; if the specified religious dedication becomes legally impermissible, provide an alternative (e.g., conversion to community center) or reversion mechanism

That last item is crucial: if a deed hard-codes “denominational chapel on public land” with no fallback, it may set up a future administration for conflict, audit exposure, or litigation.

12) Bottom line conclusions

Use restrictions in a land donation (modes/conditions/reversion) are generally valid in Philippine civil law if properly drafted, accepted in the required form, and (ideally) annotated on title—so long as they are not unlawful or against public policy.
The church–state problem is not about the donor’s faith or intention; it is about converting a parcel into public property devoted to sectarian use. A barangay accepting land “for a chapel” creates a serious constitutional/public policy risk, especially if the chapel is denominational, exclusive, or supported by barangay funds or preferential arrangements.
The lowest-risk way to achieve “a chapel on donated land” is usually to donate to the religious organization directly (or a properly structured private entity), not to the barangay.
If the barangay must be involved, design the public asset as secular in purpose (community facility) with neutral rules that allow religious use incidentally and non-exclusively, rather than dedicating public land as a church site.