Short answer. After the breach. Article 768 of the Civil Code provides that when revocation is based on noncompliance with a condition, the donee must return the property and also the fruits received after having failed to fulfill the condition — not fruits earned before the breach.
What the law says
If the revocation is based upon noncompliance with any of the conditions imposed in the donation, the donee shall return not only the property but also the fruits thereof which he may have received after having failed to fulfill the condition.
Civil Code, Article 768 — Return Of Fruits After Revocation. Read the full provision →
The rule for condition-based revocations
Article 768 of the Civil Code establishes a stricter fruit-return obligation when the ground for revocation is the donee's own failure to comply with a condition of the donation: "If the revocation is based upon noncompliance with any of the conditions imposed in the donation, the donee shall return not only the property but also the fruits thereof which he may have received after having failed to fulfill the condition." The return obligation therefore begins when the breach occurred, not when the complaint was filed. Whatever the property produced after the donee stopped honoring the condition must be returned along with the property itself.
How this differs from ingratitude revocations
Article 768 draws a sharp contrast between two types of revocation. For revocations based on ingratitude, birth of a child, or inofficiousness, the donee keeps fruits until the complaint is filed — the obligation runs only from that point. For condition-based revocations, the fruit-return clock starts earlier: at the moment the donee failed to fulfill the condition. A donee who has been collecting rent on donated property for two years after stopping compliance with a condition cannot shelter that rent behind the filing-of-complaint shield; all of it must be returned.
Why the stricter rule applies here
The distinction reflects the nature of the breach. Ingratitude or the birth of a child are events that happen independently — the donee's possession before that event was blameless. But a condition-based breach is the donee's own failure: the donee chose not to perform what the donation required. From the moment of that choice, the donee's continued possession and enjoyment of the property's fruits is tainted by the non-performance. The law treats the fruits earned in that period as improperly held and requires their return together with the property.
Practical implications for donors
If you donated property subject to a condition — such as caring for an elderly relative, maintaining a structure, or paying a monthly sum — and the donee stopped fulfilling the condition some time ago, Article 768 may entitle you to recover not just the property but all fruits the donee earned since the breach began. Establishing the date of the breach is therefore important. The longer the gap between breach and the filing of a revocation case, the more fruits may be recoverable. Documenting when and how the condition was breached — and when you first became aware of it — helps frame the fruit-return computation.