ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 146573.February 7, 2001]
ACUT, JR., vs. MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILS. CORP., et al.
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 7 2001.
G.R. No. 146573(Sabino E. Acut, Jr., vs. Mitsubishi Motors Philippines Corporation and Citimotors, Inc.)
Petitioner assails the Order issued by the Regional Trial Court dismissing his petition applying Article 1571 of the Civil Code governing contracts of sale which provide that actions arising from the provisions of the preceeding 10 articles shall be barred after six (6) months from the delivery of the thing sold.
The present controversy stemmed from petitioner's discontent with the performance of a Mitsubishi Space Gear which he bought on July 30, 1998.
On February 2 1, 2000, petitioner, in an action for rescission of contract of sale, made allegations as to the poor performance of the subject vehicle. Pertinent to the case at bar are the following allegations:
1.2. Plaintiff paid the full purchase price of P990,000.00 for a brand-new vehicle which would not only look brand-new but which, as the average buyer normally expects from such vehicle, would also perform like a brand-new vehicle, trouble-free, safe, and reliable over several years of normal use and well into and beyond the 100,000-kilometer mark in its odometer. By paying the full purchase price under the terms of the sale, plaintiff complied faithfully with his part of the bargain.
l..3. Defendants, however, did not perform their correlative obligations or what was incumbent upon them under the contract of sale. What defendants delivered to plaintiff was not what the latter had bargained for.
1.4. Plaintiff bargained for a trouble-free and reliable vehicle. What defendants delivered was and is the exact opposite.
(p. 15, Rollo.)
On April 7, 2000 and April 26, 2000, private respondents Citimotors and Mitsubishi Motors filed their respective motion to dismiss.
On June 14, 2000, the regional trial court dismissed thusly:
A perusal of the facts alleged in the complaint shows that the causes of action relied upon by the plaintiff in filing the instant case falls under Articles 1560 to 1571 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, as argued by the defendant Citimotors, Inc. and not under Article 1170 of the said Code as alleged by the plaintiff.
It must be noted that there is no question that the plaintiff and the defendant Citimotors, Inc. do not dispute the fact that contract entered into by them is that of a contract of sale. Hence, their transaction shall be governed by the Law on Sales. In view thereof, Article 1567 of the New Civil Code, which specifically provides for the remedy of rescission which must govern the instant case and not Article 1191 as argued by the plaintiff.
(p. 175, Rollo.)
Displeased, petitioner filed the instant petition instead of appealing the case to the Court of Appeals, unmindful of the Court's declaration that the remedy against a final order is an appeal not a petition for certiorari (Province of Bulacan vs. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 442 [1998]).
Petitioner insists on the applicability of Article 1191 of the New Civil Code which provides that:
Art. 1191. The power to rescind obligations is implied in reciprocal ones, in case one of the obligors should not comply with what is incumbent upon him.
The injured party may choose between the fulfillment and the rescission of the obligation, with the payment of damages in either case. He may also seek rescission, even after he has chosen fulfillment, if the latter should become impossible.
The court shall decree the rescission claimed, unless there be just cause authorizing the fixing of a period.
However, a perusal of petitioner's complaint readily reveals that the cause of action relied upon by petitioner falls under Article 1560 to 1571 of the New Civil Code governing Warranty Against Hidden Defects of or Encumbrances Upon the Thing Sold. Pertinently, Articles 1561 and 1571 provide:
Art. 1561. The vendor shall be responsible for warranty against the hidden defects which the thing sold may have, should they render it unfit for the use for which it is intended, or should they diminish its fitness for such use to such an extent that, had the vendee been aware thereof, he would not have acquired it or would have given a lower price for it
����������� x��������� x��������� x
����������� x��������� x��������� x
����������� x��������� x��������� x
Art. 1571. Actions arising from the provisions of the preceding ten articles shall be barred after six months, from the delivery of the thing sold.
Since it was never disputed that the contract between the parties in the case at bar was a contract of sale, the transaction obviously has to be governed by the Law on sales.
Petitioner having bought the subject vehicle on July 30, 1998, he should have sued within six months from said date or not later than January 30. 1999. However, it was only on February 21, 2000 that petitioner filed his complaint, hence the same was already time barred and his cause of action against private respondents had already lapsed. In relation to this the Court has ruled that prescription may be effectively pleaded in a motion to dismiss if the complaint shows on its face that the action had already prescribed at the time it was filed and the trial court could dismiss the case motu proprio on this ground even though the defendants do not present a motion for the dismissal of the complaint (Heir of Placido Miranda vs. Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 368 [1987]).
WHEREFORE, petition is denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
