Validity of Donation and Recovery of Property (Philippine Legal Article)

1) The typical controversy

Disputes over school sites often arise when:

A parcel being used as a public school site is “donated” to a private person, a private entity, or even to a different public entity; and/or
A deed of donation appears on record even though the supposed donor had no authority, no ownership, or failed to comply with legal formalities; and/or
A transfer certificate of title (TCT) later issues based on the donation, triggering eviction threats, fencing, or assertions of private ownership over land long used by the school.

The core questions are usually:

Was there a valid donation at all?
If the donation was void or voidable, who may sue and what is the proper action?
Can the school/LGU/DepEd recover the land or cancel the title?
What defenses (prescription, laches, indefeasibility of title, buyer-in-good-faith) might defeat recovery?

2) The legal nature of “school site” property

A school site can fall into different legal buckets, and the answer changes depending on which bucket applies:

A. Privately owned land used by a public school

A private owner may allow a school to occupy land:

by lease, usufruct, permit, tolerance, or donation; or
by acquisition by government (purchase, expropriation, donation).

If the land remains privately titled and no valid transfer to government occurred, the school’s occupation may be precarious unless protected by contract or law.

B. Government-owned land (National or Local)

If the land is owned by the State or an LGU, it may be:

Property of public dominion (generally inalienable, for public use/service); or
Patrimonial property (owned by government in a proprietary capacity, which can be alienated subject to legal requirements).

A public school site is commonly treated as devoted to public service. If it is classified/used as such, disposal is heavily restricted and must comply strictly with law.

C. Public land (land of the public domain)

If the “school site” is actually part of the public domain (unclassified forest land, or not yet declared alienable and disposable), no private ownership can arise except through processes allowed by law, and no one can validly donate what they do not own.

Bottom line: Before anything else, determine the land’s status: titled private land, titled government land, untitled public land, or titled but allegedly wrongfully titled.

3) Donation under Philippine law: the baseline rules

Donations are governed primarily by the Civil Code. For land disputes, the decisive rules are the formalities and authority requirements.

A. Donation is a contract, not a mere promise

A donation requires:

Donor’s capacity and authority
Donative intent
Acceptance by the donee
Compliance with required form, especially for immovable property

B. Strict formalities for donations of real property

For immovable property (land), the Civil Code requires strict form:

The donation must be in a public instrument (not just a private writing).
It must specify the property donated and any charges/conditions.
The donee must accept in the same public instrument or in a separate public instrument.
If acceptance is in a separate instrument, the donor must be notified in authentic form and that notification must be noted in both instruments.

Effect of noncompliance: Donation of land that does not follow these formalities is generally void.

C. “Donation” signed by the wrong person: authority problems

Even if a deed is notarized, it can still be invalid if:

The “donor” did not own the property; or
The signer had no authority (e.g., a principal, teacher, PTA officer, barangay officer, or even an LGU official acting without required approvals).

This is where most “illegal donation of school site” disputes live: a document exists, but the legal power to donate did not.

4) Who can legally donate a school site?

A. If the alleged donor is a private individual

A private person can donate only if:

They are the registered owner (or otherwise proven owner) of the land; and
The donation meets Civil Code formalities.

If the land is not theirs (for example, government land merely occupied by the school), the donation is void for lack of ownership.

B. If the alleged donor is an LGU (province/city/municipality/barangay)

LGUs have power to acquire and dispose property, but disposal (including donation) is not free-form. The Local Government Code (RA 7160) and related rules require compliance such as:

Sanggunian authority (typically via ordinance/resolution depending on nature of property and transaction)
Determination that the property is patrimonial (alienable) and not property of public dominion devoted to public service
Compliance with COA rules and public policy restrictions, especially when transferring public assets

If an LGU official signs a deed without authority from the sanggunian or in violation of rules, the donation can be attacked as ultra vires (beyond powers) and invalid.

C. If the alleged donor is a school official, DepEd employee, or PTA officer

As a rule:

A school principal or DepEd employee does not own the school site by virtue of their position.
PTA/SGC (School Governing Council) officers cannot donate government land.
Any “donation” executed by them as “owner” is typically void (no ownership, no authority).

5) “Illegal donation” patterns and their legal consequences

Pattern 1: Donation of land not owned by the donor

Legal effect: Void. A person cannot give what they do not have.
Common scenario: Someone donates a long-occupied school site claiming ownership, but there is no valid title or the land is government/public land.

Pattern 2: Donation of government land without required approvals

Legal effect: Void or unenforceable; potentially subject to reversion/reconveyance.
Common scenario: A deed signed by an LGU executive without sanggunian authority, or disposal of land devoted to public service.

Pattern 3: Donation missing Civil Code formalities (acceptance, public instrument requirements)

Legal effect: Void as a donation of immovable property.
Common scenario: “Deed” exists but acceptance is absent or improperly executed/not notarized correctly.

Pattern 4: Forged deed, falsified signatures, fake notarization

Legal effect: Void and conveys no title.
Additional exposure: Criminal liability (falsification, use of falsified document), administrative liability for public officers, and possible anti-graft implications if public land is involved.

Pattern 5: Conditional donation for school purposes later diverted

Example: Land was donated to the government “for school site purposes” but later used/sold for something else.

Legal effect: May allow revocation based on non-fulfillment of conditions (if the donation is valid and conditional), and recovery of the property under Civil Code rules.

6) Recovery of the property: the menu of legal remedies

The correct remedy depends on who owns the land, what document exists, and whether a Torrens title was issued.

A. If the school/government never lost title (or deed is void)

Possible actions:

Action to declare the deed void / annulment of document هدف: judicial declaration that the donation is void and produces no effect.
Reivindicatory action (accion reivindicatoria) Used when the plaintiff claims ownership and seeks recovery of possession.
Action for reconveyance (when title is in another’s name, but plaintiff claims it rightfully belongs to them) Often paired with cancellation of title, especially when registration was allegedly obtained through fraud.
Quieting of title Used when there is a cloud on title (e.g., a recorded deed of donation or adverse claim).
Reversion (for public land improperly titled or disposed) If the land is part of the public domain or was improperly privatized, the State—typically through the Office of the Solicitor General—may bring an action for reversion.

B. If the dispute is primarily about possession (but ownership is complex)

Unlawful detainer / forcible entry cases may arise, but these are limited to possession issues and can be derailed if ownership is inseparable from the dispute.
For a school site with deep ownership issues, parties often end up in the Regional Trial Court for actions involving title/ownership.

C. If a Torrens title already exists in the donee’s name

This is the hard part. The Torrens system protects registered titles, but not all titles are bulletproof.

Key points:

A void deed generally conveys no title. If a title was issued based on a void deed, it may still be challenged—especially by the true owner or the State in proper cases.
However, defenses like indefeasibility, buyer-in-good-faith (if later transferred for value), laches, and prescription can complicate recovery depending on the factual timeline and the nature of the defect (void vs voidable; fraud vs lack of authority; public land vs private land).

Important practical distinction:

Buyer-in-good-faith protections are usually strongest for purchasers for value. A donee (recipient of a donation) is not a purchaser for value in the usual sense, which can weaken good-faith defenses—though later buyers from the donee may raise them.

D. If the land is government property devoted to public service

Government is generally not estopped by unauthorized acts of its agents. If the property is inalienable or disposed of without authority, recovery is often legally favored—subject to procedural requirements and proper representation (e.g., OSG for certain actions).

7) Prescription and laches: can the claim become “too late”?

A. Void vs voidable matters

Void contracts generally produce no effect and can often be attacked as a nullity.
Voidable contracts are valid until annulled and are subject to prescriptive periods for annulment.

In an “illegal donation” case, the classification matters:

Lack of required form for land donation → typically void
Lack of authority / ultra vires disposal of public property → often void
Fraud that makes consent defective in a validly formed contract → can implicate voidable concepts, but land donation formalities and ownership issues frequently push cases into void territory.

B. Laches (equitable delay)

Even if prescription is arguable, defendants often invoke laches: long inaction plus prejudice. But courts tend to treat laches cautiously when:

Public land or public interest (like a school site) is involved; or
The transaction is patently void or unauthorized.

Outcomes depend heavily on the timeline: when the deed was executed, when the school/government learned, when the title issued, when possession was disturbed, and what acts occurred in reliance.

8) Conditions in donations: revocation and return

Many school-site donations are conditional, e.g.:

“for school purposes,”
“so long as used as school site,”
“subject to reversion if no longer used.”

A. If the donation is valid and conditional

If the donee violates conditions, the donor may seek revocation and recovery under Civil Code principles:

The donor typically must go to court to enforce revocation and recovery.
Conditions and reversion clauses are stronger when they are clearly written and (ideally) annotated on the title.

B. If the donation is invalid

You do not “revoke” a void donation; you attack it as void and seek cancellation/reconveyance/reversion as appropriate.

9) Evidence that usually decides these cases

Courts decide school-site donation disputes largely on documents and chain-of-title:

A. Ownership and land status

Original Certificate of Title (OCT) / Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)
Tax declarations (secondary evidence; not conclusive of ownership)
DENR classification (alienable/disposable vs forest land) for untitled/public land issues
Survey plans and technical descriptions
Proclamations/reservations (if the land was reserved for school purposes)

B. Donation validity

Deed of Donation (notarized? public instrument? complete description?)
Donee’s acceptance (same instrument or separate public instrument with proper notice)
Authority documents (board/sanggunian resolutions, ordinances, DepEd authority, special powers)

C. Possession and public use

Proof of long-standing school occupation (buildings, classrooms, permits, government improvements)
Records of DepEd/LGU funding and improvements (often persuasive on public character)

D. Fraud/forgery indicators

Notarial register verification
Signature comparisons
Witness testimonies and notary’s compliance
Registry of Deeds annotations and timeline

10) Potential liabilities arising from an “illegal donation”

Aside from civil suits, these disputes can trigger:

A. Criminal exposure (depending on facts)

Falsification of public documents (if deed/notarization/signatures are falsified)
Use of falsified documents
Estafa (in some schemes involving deceit and damage)
For public officers: possible charges depending on misuse of position or public property

B. Administrative liability for public officers

If officials processed or executed unauthorized disposal:

Administrative cases for misconduct, dishonesty, grave abuse, etc., may arise.

C. Anti-graft considerations

If public property is unlawfully transferred or private parties are unwarrantedly benefited through official action, anti-graft risks may appear depending on evidence of bad faith, manifest partiality, or gross negligence.

(Which specific charge fits is fact-driven; courts and prosecutors focus on intent, authority, and damage to government.)

11) Practical legal framing: how courts typically structure the issues

Courts usually break the dispute into a sequence:

What is the land? Private titled? Government titled? Public domain? Reserved school site?
Who owned it at the time of the alleged donation? If donor did not own, donation fails.
Did the donor have authority to dispose/donate? Especially for government/LGU property.
Were Civil Code formalities met (public instrument + acceptance + notice)?
What happened in registration? Was a title issued? When? Based on what instrument?
What remedy fits the legal defect? Nullity/cancellation/reconveyance/reversion/recovery of possession.
Are there time-bar defenses (prescription/laches) or third-party rights? Particularly if property passed to alleged buyers for value.

12) Key takeaways in Philippine setting

A “donation” of a school site can be completely void if the donor lacks ownership, authority, or if mandatory formalities for land donation are not met.
Government and public school sites bring public interest considerations, often strengthening the case for recovery when disposal is unauthorized.
Recovery may proceed through declaration of nullity, reconveyance, cancellation of title, quieting of title, reivindication, or reversion, depending on land status and title history.
Torrens titles are powerful but not absolute shields against transactions rooted in void instruments, lack of authority, or public land constraints—while factual timelines and subsequent transfers can complicate outcomes.
The “winning” side is usually the one with the cleanest proof on: (1) land classification/ownership, (2) authority, (3) compliance with donation formalities, (4) registration timeline, and (5) possession/public use history.