8/10/2019 Prescription- Case Digests

1/3

2Bentir vs Leanda

FACTS : Respondent corporation (Leyte Gulf Traders, Inc.)alleged that it entered into a contract of lease of a parcel ofland with petitioner Bentir for a period of twenty (20)years starting May 5, 1 !"

. According to respondentcorporation, the lease was e#tended for anot$er fo%r (&)years or %nti' May 1, 1 2 . n !ay ", #$%$, petitionerBentir sold the leased pre&ises to petitioner spouses 'a&uel

or&ada and harito or&ada. Respondent corporation*uestioned the sale alleging that it had a right of +rst refusal.Re u-ed, it +led a ci il case see ing t$e refor*ation oft$e e#pired +ontra+t of 'ease on the ground that its lawyerinad ertently o&itted to incorporate in the contract of leasee/ecuted in 1 !" , the er al agree&ent or understanding

etween the parties that in the e ent petitioner Bentir leasesor sells the lot after the e/piration of the lease, respondentcorporation has the right to e*ual the highest o-er.

The respondent corporation +led the co&plaint forrefor&ation on May 15,1 2

In due ti&e, petitioners +led their answer alleging that theinad ertence of the lawyer who prepared the lease contract isnot a ground for refor&ation. They further contended thatrespondent +orporation is g%i'ty of 'a+$es for not-ringing t$e +ase for refor*ation of t$e 'ease +ontra+twit$in t$e pres+riptive period of ten (10) years fro* i ts

e#e+%tion .RT Tac Branch 0 issued an order dis&issing the co&plaintpre&ised on its +nding that the action for refor&ation hadalready prescri ed.

ase was rera1ed to RT Tac Branch % wherein respondent 2udge Leanda issued an order re ersing the order of dis&issalon the grounds that the action for refor&ation had not yetprescri ed and the dis&issal was 3pre&ature and precipitate3,denying respondent corporation of its right to procedural dueprocess.

.SS/ 4hether or not the co&plaint for refor&ation hasprescri ed.

/L.34 es The prescripti e period of ten (#5) yearspro ided for in Art.##66 applies y operation of law, not ythe will of the parties. Therefore, the right of action forrefor&ation accrued fro& the date of e/ecution of thecontract of lease in #$7%.

The remedy of reformation of an instrument is grounded onthe principle of equity where, in order to express the trueintention of the contracting parties, an instrument alreadyexecuted is allowed by law to be reformed. The right ofreformation is necessarily an invasion or limitation of the

parol evidence rule since, when a writing is reformed, theresult is that an oral agreement is by court decree madelegally e ective . [11] onsequently, the courts, as the agenciesauthori!ed by law to exercise the power to reform aninstrument, must necessarily exercise that power sparinglyand with great caution and !ealous care. "oreover, the

remedy, being an extraordinary one, must be sub#ect tolimitations as may be provided by law. $ur law and

#urisprudence set such limitations, among which is laches. %suit for reformation of an instrument may be barred by lapseof time. The prescriptive period for actions based upona written contract and for reformation of aninstrument is ten (10) years under Article 1144 of theCivil Code . [1&] 'rescription is intended to suppress stale andfraudulent claims arising from transactions li(e the one at barwhich facts had become so obscure from the lapse of time ordefective memory . [1 ! "n the case at bar# respondentcorporation had ten (10) years from 1$% the timewhen the contract of lease was e'ecuted# to le anaction for reformation. adly# it did so only on *ay 1+#1$$, or twenty-four (,4) years after the cause ofaction accrued# hence# its cause of action has become

stale# hence# time-barred. )ven if we were to assume for the sa(e of argument that theinstant action for reformation is not time*barred, respondentcorporation+s action will still not prosper. nder -ection 1,

ule /0 of the ew ules of ourt, [12] an action for thereformation of an instrument is instituted as a special civilaction for declaratory relief. -ince the purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement ofthe rights and obligations of the parties for their guidance inthe enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not tosettle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may beentertained only before the breach or violation of the law orcontract to which it refers. [13] 4ere, respondent corporationbrought the present action for reformation after an alleged

breach or violation of the contract was already committed by petitioner 5entir. onsequently, the remedy of reformation nolonger lies.

Ain6a vs 7ad%a

FACTS 'ps 8ugenia and Antonio adua owned an un+nishedresidential house. 'o&eti&e in Apri' 1 "8 , oncepcion Ain9aalleged that she ought one half of an undi ided portion ofthe property fro& her daughter, 8ugenia and Antonio for ne;undred Thousand pesos ( #55,555).

8/10/2019 Prescription- Case Digests

2/3

partnership without the wife>s consent. (Art. #77, 6dem .) And

the wife cannot ind the con ugal partnership without the

hus and>s consent, e/cept in cases pro ided y law. (Art.

#0C, 6dem .).

The consent of oth 8ugenia and Antonio is

necessary for the sale of the con ugal property to e

alid. Antonio>s consent cannot e presu&ed.

#@H 8/cept for the self ser ing testi&ony of petitioner

8/10/2019 Prescription- Case Digests

3/3

The records would show that petitionersJ possession was y&ere tolerance of respondents and their predecessors ininterest.

Mer+ado vs spino+i''a

FACTS =oroteo 8spinocilla owned a parcel of land. After hedied, his + e children, 'al acion, Aspren, Isa el, !acario, and=ionisia di ided the lot e*ually a&ong the&sel es. Later,=ionisia died without issue ahead of her four si lings, and!acario too? possession of =ionisia>s share. In an a da it oftransfer of real property ?&@ dated s house .? @

;is clai& has since een&odi+ed to an alleged encroach&ent of only @$ s*. &. that heclai&s &ust e returned to hi&. ;e a ers that he is entitledto own and possess #0# s*. &. of Lot s inheritance is #6C." s*. &., that is, ##6 s*. &. fro&=oroteo plus C%." s*. &. fro& =ionisia. Sin+e t$e area $eo++%pies is on'y 1 2 s< * , ?10@ $e +'ai*s t$atrespondents en+roa+$ on $is s$are -y s< *

Respondents agree that =oroteo>s + e children each inherited##6 s*. &. of Lot s shareincreased when he recei ed =ionisia>s share. !acario>sincreased share was then sold to his son Roger, respondents>hus and and father. Respondents clai& that they rightfullypossess the land they occupy y irtue of ac*uisiti eprescription and that there is no asis for petitioner>s clai& ofencroach&ent.

.ss%e 4hether or not petitioner>s action to reco er thesu ect portion is arred y prescription.

%'ing rescription, as a &ode of ac*uiring ownership andother real rights o er i&&o a le property, is concerned withlapse of ti&e in the &anner and under conditions laid down ylaw, na&ely, that the possession should e in the concept ofan owner, pu lic, peaceful, uninterrupted, andad erse. Ac*uisiti e prescription of real rights &ay eordinary or e/traordinary. rdinary ac*uisiti e prescriptionre*uires possession in good faith and with ust title for #5years. In e/traordinary prescription, ownership and other realrights o er i&&o a le property are ac*uired throughuninterrupted ad erse possession for @5 years without needof title or of good faith.

;ere, petitioner hi&self ad&its the ad erse nature ofrespondents> possession with his assertion that !acario>sfraudulent ac*uisition of =ionisia>s share created aconstructi e trust. In a constructi e trust, there is neither apro&ise nor any +duciary relation to spea? of and the socalled trustee (!acario) neither accepts any trust nor intendsholding the property for the ene+ciary ('al acion, Aspren,Isa el). The relation of trustee and cestui *ue trust does notin fact e/ist, and the holding of a constructi e trust is for thetrustee hi&self, and therefore, at all ti&es ad erse.?21@ rescription &ay super ene e en if the trustee does notrepudiate the relationship.

It was only in the year C555, upon receipt of the su&&ons toanswer petitioner>s co&plaint, that respondents> peacefulpossession of the re&aining portion (#5$ s*. &.) wasinterrupted. By then, howe er, e/traordinary ac*uisiti eprescription has already set in in fa or of respondents.

etitioner>s action for reco ery of possession ha ing een +led55 years after Ma+ario o++%pied ionisia:s s$are , it isalso arred y e/tincti e prescription. The A whileconde&ning !acario>s fraudulent act of depri ing his threesisters of their shares in =ionisia>s share, e*ually e&phasi9edthe fact that !acario>s sisters wasted their opportunity to*uestion his acts.

>irt%+io vs A'egar-es

FACTS Respondent Alegar es +led a ;o&estead Applicationfor C6 hectare tract of unser eyed land in Basilan. ;isapplication was appro ed on an%ary 2 , 1 52 In #$"", theland was su di ided into @lots (Lot #@%,#@$,#65) as aconse*uence of pu lic land su di ision. ustodio and

etitioner Dirtucio, who was allocated with Lots #@$ and #65,+led ;o&estead Application.

Alegar es opposed the ;o&estead Application of ustodioand Dirtucio clai&ing that his ho&estead application co eredthe entire lot, including Lot #@$ and #65.

.n 1 !1, =irector of Lands denied Alegar es protest.Alegar es appealed to the 'ec of Agriculture and