ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279 March 1, 2001 - ALICIA GONZALES-DECANO v. ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1282 March 1, 2001 - SOFRONIO DAYOT v. RODOLFO B. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 112092 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT NUÑEZ

  • G.R. No. 123069 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126019 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO CALDONA

  • G.R. No. 131637 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODELIO PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 133888 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARDO

  • G.R. No. 134330 March 1, 2001 - ENRIQUE M. BELO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135667-70 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO

  • G.R. No. 138666 March 1, 2001 - ISABELO LORENZANA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 140511 March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR AMION

  • G.R. No. 142313 March 1, 2001 - MANUEL CHU, SR., ET AL. v. BENELDA ESTATE DEV’T. CORP.

  • G.R. No. 142527 March 1, 2001 - ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144678 March 1, 2001 - JAVIER E. ZACATE v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & 146738 March 2, 2001 - JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113236 March 5, 2001 - FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113265 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL PEREZ

  • G.R. No. 118680 March 5, 2001 - MARIA ELENA RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123788 March 5, 2001 - DOMINADOR DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124686 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROQUE ELLADO

  • G.R. No. 127158 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO HERIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132353 March 5, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO IBO

  • G.R. No. 126557 March 6, 2001 - RAMON ALBERT v. CELSO D. GANGAN

  • G.R. No. 138646 March 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOMER CABANSAY

  • G.R. No. 139518 March 6, 2001 - EVANGELINE L. PUZON v. STA. LUCIA REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT

  • G.R. Nos. 140249 & 140363 March 6, 2001 - DANILO S. YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140884 March 6, 2001 - GELACIO P. GEMENTIZA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143823 March 6, 2001 - JENNIFER ABRAHAM v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126168 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO

  • G.R. No. 129594 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNNIFER LAURENTE

  • G.R. No. 135945 March 7, 2001 - UNITED RESIDENTS OF DOMINICAN HILL v. COMM. ON THE SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

  • G.R. No. 136173 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ICALLA

  • G.R. Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO SALADINO

  • G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO MANGOMPIT

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297 March 7, 2001 - JOSEFINA BANGCO v. RODOLFO S. GATDULA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001 - HERMINIA BORJA-MANZANO v. ROQUE R SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 122611 March 8, 2001 - NAPOLEON H. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125901 March 8, 2001 - EDGARDO A. TIJING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130378 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134279 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY ROGER AUSTRIA

  • G.R. Nos. 135234-38 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO GUNTANG

  • G.R. No. 137649 March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLADARES

  • G.R. No. 138137 March 8, 2001 - PERLA S. ZULUETA v. ASIA BREWERY

  • G.R. No. 138774 March 8, 2001 - REGINA FRANCISCO, ET AL v. AIDA FRANCISCO-ALFONSO

  • G.R. No. 140479 March 8, 2001 - ROSENCOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. v. PATERNO INQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140713 March 8, 2001 - ROSA YAP PARAS, ET AL. v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 112115 March 9, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140619-24 March 9, 2001 - BENEDICTO E. KUIZON, ET AL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 126099 March 12, 2001 - ROBERTO MITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128372 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. Nos. 130634-35 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO OYANIB

  • G.R. No. 131889 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA O. GOCHAN, ET AL. v. RICHARD G. YOUNG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136738 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN VALEZ

  • G.R. No. 137306 March 12, 2001 - VIRGINIA AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR RUMBAUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140011-16 March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO MORATA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1464 March 13, 2001 - SALVADOR O. BOOC v. MALAYO B. BANTUAS

  • G.R. No. 103073 March 13, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131530 March 13, 2001 - Y REALTY CORP. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136594 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL CANIEZO

  • G.R. No. 139405 March 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO F. PACIFICADOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 March 14, 2001 - EDGARDO ALDAY, ET AL. v. ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 116001 & 123943 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO GO

  • G.R. No. 130209 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY LAVAPIE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANSELMO BARING

  • G.R. Nos. 134451-52 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO FRETA

  • G.R. No. 137036 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO DE MESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138045 March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETTA PATUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139300 March 14, 2001 - AMIGO MANUFACTURING v. CLUETT PEABODY CO.

  • G.R. No. 102985 March 15, 2001 - RUBEN BRAGA CURAZA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133480 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORANTE AGUILUZ

  • G.R. Nos. 135201-02 March 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 141616 March 15, 2001 - CITY OF QUEZON v. LEXBER INCORPORATED

  • G.R. No. 116847 March 16, 2001 - MANUFACTURERS BUILDING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128083 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. HILARIO

  • G.R. No. 128922 March 16, 2001 - ELEUTERIA B. ALIABO, ET AL. v. ROGELIO L. CARAMPATAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129070 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NELLIE CABAIS

  • G.R. No. 131544 March 16, 2001 - EPG CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL. v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR

  • G.R. No. 135047 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO CACHOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137282 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALIPAR

  • G.R. Nos. 137753-56 March 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. NILO ARDON

  • A.M. No. 01-1463 March 20, 2001 - EVELYN ACUÑA v. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306 March 20, 2001 - ROBERT M. VISBAL v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. P-97-1241 March 20, 2001 - DINNA CASTILLO v. ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO

  • G.R. Nos. 105965-70 March 20, 2001 - GEORGE UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108991 March 20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130663 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ANGELES STA. TERESA

  • G.R. Nos. 136862-63 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 139413-15 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO GALAS

  • G.R. No. 140356 March 20, 2001 - DOLORES FAJARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140919 March 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUTCH BUCAO LEE

  • G.R. No. 142476 March 20, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 144074 March 20, 2001 - MEDINA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127772 March 22, 2001 - ROBERTO P. ALMARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133815-17 March 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO LIAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134972 March 22, 2001 - ERNESTO CATUNGAL, ET AL. v. DORIS HAO

  • A.M. No. P-01-1469 March 26, 2001 - ROEL O. PARAS v. MYRNA F. LOFRANCO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624 March 26, 2001 - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE RELATIVE TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS NO. 28

  • A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ March 26, 2001 - HILARIO DE GUZMAN v. DEODORO J. SISON

  • G.R. Nos. 102407-08 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO LUCERO

  • G.R. No. 121608 March 26, 2001 - FLEISCHER COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121902 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALTER MELENCION

  • G.R. No. 125865 March 26, 2001 - JEFFREY LIANG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129916 March 26, 2001 - MAGELLAN CAPITAL MNGT. CORP., ET AL. v. ROLANDO M. ZOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131638-39 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO MEDENILLA

  • G.R. No. 131653 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 133475 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MONTEJO

  • G.R. No. 134903 March 26, 2001 - UNICRAFT INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136790 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL GALVEZ

  • G.R. No. 137268 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTIQUIA CARMEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137590 March 26, 2001 - FLORENCE MALCAMPO-SIN v. PHILIPP T. SIN

  • G.R. No. 137739 March 26, 2001 - ROBERTO B. TAN v. PHIL. BANKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137889 March 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 142950 March 26, 2001 - EQUITABLE PCI BANK v. ROSITA KU

  • G.R. Nos. 147066 & 147179 March 26, 2001 - AKBAYAN - Youth, ET AL. v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA March 27, 2001 - IN RE: DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1473 March 27, 2001 - GLORIA O. BENITEZ v. MEDEL P. ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 123149 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO CABUG

  • G.R. No. 131588 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 137762-65 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BARES

  • G.R. No. 137989 March 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SONNY MATIONG, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357 March 28, 2001 - MONFORT HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1574 March 28, 2001 - GORGONIO S. NOVA v. SANCHO DAMES II

  • G.R. No. 100701 March 28, 2001 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101442 March 28, 2001 - JOSE ANGELES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 110012 March 28, 2001 - ANASTACIO VICTORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112314 March 28, 2001 - VICENTE R. MADARANG v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117964 March 28, 2001 - PLACIDO O. URBANES, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122216 March 28, 2001 - ALJEM’S CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126751 March 28, 2001 - SAFIC ALCAN & CIE v. IMPERIAL VEGETABLE OIL CO.

  • G.R. No. 126959 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVANDO SATURNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136965 March 28, 2001 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINA ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 137660 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 137932 March 28, 2001 - CHIANG YIA MIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138474 March 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO BALANO

  • G.R. Nos. 139571-72 March 28, 2001 - ROGER N. ABARDO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 140153 March 28, 2001 - ANTONIO DOCENA, ET AL. v. RICARDO P. LAPESURA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141307 March 28, 2001 - PURTO J. NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142007 March 28, 2001 - MANUEL C. FELIX v. ENERTECH SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143173 March 28, 2001 - PEDRO ONG, ET AL. v. SOCORRO PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 2001 - KHE HONG CHENG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131836 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELITA SINCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137564 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DOMENDED

  • G.R. No. 137648 March 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENEO PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 140311 March 30, 2001 - DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 108991   March 20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 108991. March 20, 2001.]

    WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    Actions for the annulment of contracts prescribe in four years. If the ground for annulment is vitiation of consent by intimidation, the four-year period starts from the time such defect ceases. The running of this prescriptive period cannot be interrupted by an extrajudicial demand made by the party whose consent was vitiated. If the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period are apparent from the records, the complaint should be dismissed.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Case


    Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the February 12, 1993 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 29327. The dispositive part of the assailed Decision reads: —

    "WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. The Order dated September 11, 1992 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch II in Civil Case No. 90-52519 is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.

    SO ORDERED." 2

    The Facts


    The undisputed facts are summarized by the appellate court as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "On March 23, 1990, [Petitioner] William Alain Miailhe, on his own behalf and on behalf of Victoria Desbarats-Miailhe, Monique Miailhe-Sichere and Elaine Miailhe-Lencquesaing filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, Reconveyance and Damages against [Respondent] Republic of the Philippines and defendant Development Bank of the Philippines before the [trial] court. It was alleged, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    4. That plaintiffs were the former registered owners of three parcels of land located at J.P. Laurel St., San Miguel, Manila with an aggregate area of 5,574.30 square meters, and a one (1) storey building erected thereon, formerly covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 80645 of the Register of Deeds of Manila;

    5. That the above-mentioned properties had been owned by and in the possession of plaintiffs and their family for over one hundred (100) years until August 1, 1976;

    6. That on August 1, 1976, during the height of the martial law regime of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, [Respondent] Republic of the Philippines, through its armed forces, forcibly and unlawfully took possession of the aforesaid properties from defendants;

    7. That [Respondent] Republic of the Philippines, through its armed forces, continued its lawful and forcible occupation of the premises from August 1, 1976 to August 19, 1977 without paying rentals, despite plaintiffs’ demands therefor;chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    8. That meanwhile, the Office of the President showed interest in the subject properties and directed defendant DBP to acquire for the government the subject properties from plaintiff;

    9. That on or about August 19, 1977, through threats and intimidation employed by defendants, plaintiffs, under duress, were coerced into selling the subject properties to defendant DBP for the grossly low price of P2,376,805.00 or about P400.00 per square meter;

    10. That defendant DBP, in turn, sold the subject properties to [Respondent] Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the President, in 1982;

    11. That the only factor which caused plaintiffs to sell their properties to defendant DBP was the threats and intimidation employed upon them by defendants;

    12. That after the late President Marcos left the country on February 24, [sic] 1986 after the EDSA revolution, plaintiffs made repeated extrajudicial demands upon defendants for [the] return and reconveyance of subject properties to them, the last being the demand letters dated 24 October 1989, copies of which are attached and made integral parts hereof as Annexes ‘A’ and ‘A-1’;

    13. That despite demands, defendants unjustifiably failed and refused, and still unjustifiably fail and refuse, to return and reconvey the subject properties to plaintiff;

    x       x       x


    (par. 4-13 of the Complaint, pp. 28-29, Rollo).

    On May 25, 1990, [respondent] filed its Answer denying the substantial facts alleged in the complaint and raising, as special and affirmative defenses, that there was no forcible take-over of the subject properties and that the amount paid to private respondents was fair and reasonable. Defendant DBP also filed its Answer raising as Special and Affirmative Defense that [petitioner’s] action had already prescribed.

    On August 3, 1990, the [trial] court issued an Order setting the pre-trial on September 20, 1990. Petitioner and private respondents filed their respective pre-trial briefs.

    On March 5, 1992, [respondent] filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint on the ground that the action ha[d] prescribed pursuant to Article (1)391 in relation to Article (1)390 of the Civil Code. Defendant DBP likewise filed a Motion for Preliminary Hearing of the Affirmative Defense raising the same ground of prescription as contained in the [respondent’s] Motion to Dismiss.

    On September 11, 1992, the [trial] court issued an Order, the dispositive portion of which reads, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    ‘WHEREFORE, the motion for a preliminary hearing is hereby denied and the resolution of the motion to dismiss is deferred until trial . . .’ (pp. 23-26, rollo)." 3

    Respondent herein thus filed a Petition for Certiorari with the appellate court.

    Ruling of the Court of Appeals


    The CA ruled that petitioner’s action had prescribed. A suit to annul a voidable contract may be filed within four (4) years from the time the defect ceases. As alleged in paragraph 12 of the Complaint, there is a clear indication that the alleged threat and intimidation employed against petitioner ceased when then President Ferdinand E. Marcos left the country on February 24, 1986. From February 24, 1986 to March 23, 1990, when the Complaint for Annulment of Sale was filed, more than four (4) years had elapsed. The CA also ruled that Article 1155 of the Civil Code, according to which a written extrajudicial demand by the creditors would interrupt prescription, referred only to a creditor-debtor relationship, which is not the case here.

    Hence, this Petition. 4

    The Issues


    These are the issues presented before us:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Whether the Court of Appeals committed gross reversible error in finding that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction.

    "Whether the Court of Appeals committed gross reversible error in setting aside the trial court’s order of 11 September 1992 and in finding that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    i. petitioner’s action had prescribed; and,

    ii. petitioner’s extrajudicial demands did not interrupt prescription." 5

    In the main, the Court will determine whether the action for the annulment of the Contract of Sale has prescribed.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Court’s Ruling


    The Petition has no merit.

    Main Issue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Prescription

    Section 3, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court which was in effect at the time, expressly allowed the trial court to "defer the hearing and determination of the motion [to dismiss] until the trial if the ground alleged therein does not appear to be indubitable." Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the rule now reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 2. Hearing of motion. — At the hearing of the motion, the parties shall submit their arguments on the questions of law and their evidence on the questions of fact involved except those not available at that time. Should the case go to trial, the evidence presented during the hearing shall automatically be part of the evidence of the party presenting the same.

    "SECTION 3. Resolution of motion. — After the hearing, the court may dismiss the action or claim, deny the motion, or order the amendment of the pleading.

    "The court shall not defer the resolution of the motion for the reason that the ground relied upon is not indubitable.

    "In every case, the resolution shall state clearly and distinctly the reasons therefor. (3a)"

    In the present case, the trial court deferred until trial the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss, because it found that the Complaint did not show on its face that the action had already prescribed. It deemed it better to allow the parties to present their evidence in a full-blown trial.

    We disagree. The CA correctly set aside the Order of the trial court. In Gicano v. Gegato, 6 this Court held that a complaint may be dismissed when the facts showing the lapse of the prescriptive period are apparent from the records. In its words:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . We have ruled that trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription when the parties’ pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred; . . . and it may do so on the basis of a motion to dismiss, or an answer which sets up such ground as an affirmative defense; or even if the ground is alleged after judgment on the merits, as in a motion for reconsideration; or even if the defense has not been asserted at all, as where no statement thereof is found in the pleadings, or where a defendant has been declared in default. What is essential only, to repeat, is that the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period, be otherwise sufficiently and satisfactorily apparent on the record; either in the averments of the plaintiff’s complaint, or otherwise established by the evidence."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The records in this case indubitably show the lapse of the prescriptive period, thus warranting the immediate dismissal of the Complaint.

    The suit before the trial court was an action for the annulment of the Contract of Sale on the alleged ground of vitiation of consent by intimidation. The reconveyance of the three parcels of land, which the petitioner half-heartedly espouses as the real nature of the action, can prosper only if and when the Contract of Sale covering the subject lots is annulled. Thus, the reckoning period for prescription would be that pertaining to an action for the annulment of contract; that is, four years from the time the defect in the consent ceases. 7

    A perusal of the Complaint shows that the threat and intimidation ceased after then President Marcos left the country on February 24, 1986. In fact, it was only then that petitioner was allegedly able to muster the courage to make extrajudicial demands on the Republic of the Philippines. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "12. That after the late president Marcos left the country on February 24, 1986 after the EDSA revolution, plaintiffs made repeated extrajudicial demands upon defendants for [the] return and reconveyance of subject properties to them, the last being the demand letters dated 24 October 1989, copies of which are attached and made integral parts hereof as Annexes ‘A’ and ‘A-1’;" 8

    The foregoing was reiterated in the following statements in petitioner’s Pretrial Brief: 9

    ". . . During the height of the martial law era, the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos, through his armed forces, forcibly and unlawfully took possession of the property and after a year, directed the defendant Development Bank of the Philippines ("DBP") to buy the same from the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were forced to sell the property for the measly sum of P2,376,805.00, which [translated] to about P400.00 per square meter. The property was later sold by defendant DBP to the defendant Republic of the Philippines [ "Republic" ], acting through the Office of the President. Plaintiffs pray the Honorable Court to declare their sale null and void and to order reconveyance of the property."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Moreover, courts were functioning after Marcos left the country. There was no hiatus in the judicial system. This is manifest in then Acting Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee’s Circular No. 2, which is reproduced hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "TO: ALL JUSTICES OF THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND SANDIGANBAYAN; AND ALL JUDGES OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’A COURTS

    "Reports have been received that some justices and judges have ceased or suspended performing their duties pending action on the courtesy resignations submitted by them in compliance with the call of the President of the Philippines.

    "Courts are expected to continue discharging their judicial functions without interruption and delay in order to ensure the speedy disposition of their pending cases. You are, therefore, directed to continue with your regular sessions and the hearing and adjudication of cases and the proper discharge of your functions, until further notice from this court.

    "Strict compliance thereof is hereby enjoined.

    (Sgd) CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE

    Acting Chief Justice"

    The foregoing clearly shows that the alleged threat and intimidation, which vitiated petitioner’s consent, ceased when Marcos left the country on February 24, 1986. Since an action for the annulment of contracts must be filed within four years from the time the cause of vitiation ceases, the suit before the trial court should have been filed anytime on or before February 24, 1990. In this case, petitioner did so only on March 23, 1990. Clearly, his action had prescribed by then.

    Interruption of Prescription

    Petitioner asserts that the extrajudicial demands pleaded in paragraph 12 of the Complaint legally interrupted prescription in accordance with Article 1155 of the Civil Code, which states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ARTICLE 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In other words, petitioner claims that because he is covered by the term "creditor," the above-quoted provision is applicable to him.

    We are not persuaded. Petitioner himself avers that "the use of the terms ‘creditor’ and/or ‘debtor’ in Article 1155 of the Civil Code must relate to the general definition of obligations." 10 He then asserts that "an obligation is a juridical relation whereby a person (called the creditor) may demand from another (called the debtor) the observance of a determinate conduct, and in case of breach, may obtain satisfaction from the assets of the latter." 11 He also defines "credit" as the right to demand the object of the obligation. From his statements, it is clear that for there to be a creditor and a debtor to speak of, an obligation must first exist.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In the present case, there is as yet no obligation in existence. Respondent has no obligation to reconvey the subject lots because of the existing Contract of Sale. Although allegedly voidable, it is binding unless annulled by a proper action in court. 12 Not being a determinate conduct that can be extrajudicially demanded, it cannot be considered as an obligation either. Since Article 1390 of the Civil Code states that voidable "contracts are binding, unless they are annulled by a proper action in court," it is clear that the defendants were not obligated to accede to any extrajudicial demand to annul the Contract of Sale. 13

    In the absence of an existing obligation, petitioner cannot be considered a creditor, and Article 1155 of the Civil Code cannot be applied to his action. Thus, any extrajudicial demand he made did not, or will not, interrupt the prescription of his action for the annulment of the Contract of Sale.

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Melo, Gonzaga-Reyes and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

    Vitug, J., took no part; party’s relative a former client.

    Endnotes:



    1. Penned by Justice Regina G. Ordoñez-Benitez, with the concurrence of Justices Arturo B. Buena (Division chairman and now a member of this Court) and Eduardo G. Montenegro.

    2. CA Decision, p. 7; rollo, p. 41.

    3. Rollo, pp. 35-38.

    4. To eradicate its backlog of old cases, the Court on February 27, 2001 resolved to redistribute long-pending cases to justices who had no backlog, and who were thus tasked to prioritize them. Consequently, this case was raffled and assigned to the undersigned ponente for study and report on the same date.

    5. Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 8-9; rollo, pp. 202-203.

    6. 157 SCRA 140, 145-146, January 20, 1988, per Narvasa, J . See also Bergado v. CA, 173 SCRA 497, May 19, 1989; Garcia v. Mathis, 100 SCRA 250, September 30, 1980; Philippine National Bank v. Pacific Commission House, 27 SCRA 766, March 28, 1969.

    7. Article 1391 of the Civil Code reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Art. 1391. The action for annulment shall be brought within four years.

    The period shall begin:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In cases of intimidation, violence or undue influence, from the time the defect of the consent ceases.

    x       x       x."cralaw virtua1aw library

    See also MWSS v. Lopez, 297 SCRA 287, October 7, 1998; Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 20 SCRA 908, July 31, 1967.

    8. Complaint, p. 3; rollo, p. 49.

    9. Rollo, p. 240.

    10. Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 19; rollo, p. 213.

    11. Ibid., p. 20; rollo, p. 214.

    12. See Agra v. PNB, 309 SCRA 509, June 29, 1999; Rio Grande Rubber Estate Co. Inc. v. Board of Liquidators, 104 Phil. 863, November 28, 1958.

    13. See Philippine National Bank v. Osete, 24 SCRA 63, July 18, 1968.

    G.R. No. 108991   March 20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED