SPOUSES ABELARDO BORBE and ROSITA LAJARCA-BORBE,
Petitioners, -
versus - VIOLETA CALALO, Respondent. |
G.R. No. 152572
Present:
PUNO, c.j.,
Chairperson,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: October 5, 2007 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.: |
|
|
|
|
For our resolution is the instant
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, as amended, assailing the Decision[1]
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 21, 2001 and March 13,
2002, respectively, in CA-G.R. CV No. 66359.
Records show that the late Jose Palo,
during his lifetime, inherited from his parents a 400-square meter portion of
On P3,000.00 as down payment;
and that she shall pay the balance of P3,000.00 the moment a new TCT
shall have been issued in the name of respondent.
The Kasunduan was also signed by respondent’s children, namely:
Mercedes, Aguida and Vivencio, all surnamed Palo. On the same day, petitioner paid respondent the
agreed down payment of P3,000.00. Petitioner
later paid respondent in various amounts totaling P2,500.00,
leaving an unpaid balance of P500.00.
On September 22, 1982, or one year after the parties executed the Kasunduan,
TCT No. T-51153 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Lipa City in respondent’s
name.
After 13 years or in April 1995, petitioner spouses presented a prepared
deed of sale in Filipino indicating that respondent is selling to petitioners
the subject lot covered by TCT No. T-51153 in her name. However, respondent and her children refused
to sign the document, asking a higher price for the lot.
Despite demand, respondent and her children still refused to execute a
new deed of absolute sale.
As efforts to settle the dispute before the barangay authorities
failed, petitioners, on
In its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, the Court finds for the plaintiffs as against the defendant and
hereby orders the latter as follows:
1. to execute a deed
of sale over the property covered by TCT No. T-51153 in favor of the plaintiffs
upon payment by the latter of the amount of P500.00 to the defendant;
2. to
pay plaintiff attorney’s fees and appearance fees in the fixed amount of P25,
000.00; and
3. to
pay the costs of the suit.
SO ORDERED.[2]
On appeal by respondent, the Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dated
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the present appeal is hereby GRANTED. The decision appealed from in
Civil Case No. 95-556 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new judgment is
hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint as well as defendant-appellant’s
counterclaim.
No pronouncement as
to costs.
SO ORDERED.[3]
In reversing the Decision of the trial
court, the appellate court held:
However, despite the
validity and enforceability of the “KASUNDUAN,” the trial court erred in not
considering that the present action was filed beyond the ten-year prescriptive
period under Art. 1144(1) of the Civil Code, a ground which has been raised and
invoked by the appellant in her Answer. Art. 1144 provides that an action upon
a written contract must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the
right of action accrues. In cases where there is no special provision for such
computation, recourse must be had to the rule that the period must be counted
from the day on which the corresponding action could have been instituted, or
the legal possibility of bringing the action. In the present case, that
period should be computed from the date of the issuance of the certificate of
title covering the subject property in the name of appellant which was on P3, 000.00 of the purchase price will be paid by the buyers
(appellees) once the land sold will be separately titled. As the complaint was filed only on
Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration but it was denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution[4]
dated
Hence, the present petition.
The sole issue for our resolution is whether petitioners’ action has prescribed.
Petitioners contend that their cause of action accrued only in 1995, when
they tendered the remaining balance of P500.00 to respondent which the
latter refused to accept. Thus, the
Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed their complaint by reason of
prescription.
Respondent, for her part, maintains that
the petition should be denied for lack of merit.
Article 1144 of the Civil Code
provides:
Article 1144.
The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the
right of action accrues:
(1)
Upon a written contract;
(2)
Upon an obligation created by law;
(3)
Upon a judgment.
In Multi-Realty Development Corporation v. The Makati Tuscany
Condominium Corporation,[5]
we held that the term
“right of action” is the right to commence and maintain an action.
The right of action springs
from the cause of action, but does not accrue until all the facts which
constitute the cause of action have occurred.
Under the terms of the “Kasunduan,” petitioners would pay the
balance of P3,000.00 once the land sold will be
titled in the name of respondent. TCT No. T-51153 covering the subject lot was
issued in respondent’s name on P500.00 and execute a new deed of sale in their favor.
Unfortunately, it was only in 1995 when petitioners attempted to pay the
remaining balance of P500.00. And
it was only on
Petitioners contend that they filed the action only in 1995 because
respondent did not inform them of the issuance of TCT No. T-51153 in her
name. We are not convinced. The issuance of TCT No. T-51153 on
WHEREFORE, we DENY
the petition. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 66359 are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Sergio L. Pestaño (deceased).
[2] Annex “A” of the petition, rollo, pp. 25-31.
[3] Annex “B” of the petition, id., pp. 32-38.
[4] Annex “C” of the petition, id., pp. 39-40.
[5] G.R.
No. 146726,