Borbe v. Calalo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The late Jose Palo inherited a 400-square meter lot. On September 28, 1981, Rosita Lajarca-Borbe (petitioner) and Violeta Calalo (respondent), the surviving spouse of Jose Palo, executed a "Kasunduan" (agreement). Petitioner agreed to purchase the lot for P6,000.00, with P3,000.00 as down payment and the balance payable upon the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in respondent's name. Petitioner paid the down payment and P2,500.00 of the balance, leaving P500.00 unpaid. Procedural History: On September 22, 1982, TCT No. T-51153 was issued in respondent's name. Thirteen years later, in April 1995, petitioners presented a deed of sale for respondent's signature, but respondent and her children refused, demanding a higher price. Despite demands, they still refused to sign. After failed barangay conciliation, petitioners filed a complaint for specific performance with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on August 15, 1995. The RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering respondent to execute the deed of sale upon payment of the P500.00 balance and to pay attorney's fees. Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC's decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action had prescribed. The CA ruled that the ten-year prescriptive period under Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code began to run from September 22, 1982, the date the TCT was issued, making the complaint filed on August 15, 1995, almost thirteen years later, already prescribed. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the CA's Decision and Resolution. They contend that their cause of action accrued in 1995 when they tendered the remaining balance of P500.00, which respondent refused to accept, and that the CA erred in dismissing their complaint due to prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners' action for specific performance has prescribed. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's decision.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66359 are AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Prescriptive Period): The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the petitioners' action for specific performance had prescribed. The Court reiterated the principle that under Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code, actions based upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. The Court clarified that the "right of action" accrues when all the facts constituting the cause of action have occurred, granting a party the legal possibility of bringing the action. In this case, the "Kasunduan" stipulated that the balance would be paid upon the issuance of a new TCT in the respondent's name. This condition was met on September 22, 1982, when TCT No. T-51153 was issued. From that date, the petitioners had the legal right to tender the remaining P500.00 and demand the execution of the deed of sale. Therefore, the ten-year prescriptive period commenced on September 22, 1982. The complaint was filed on August 15, 1995, which is almost thirteen years after the TCT was issued, clearly exceeding the ten-year prescriptive period. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' contention that their cause of action accrued only in 1995 when they attempted to pay the balance, as this would effectively allow them to unilaterally extend the prescriptive period. The issuance of the TCT constituted constructive notice to the whole world, including the petitioners, that the respondent was the registered owner, negating any claim of ignorance. On Issue 2 (Court of Appeals' Error): The Supreme Court found no error on the part of the Court of Appeals in reversing the trial court's decision. The appellate court correctly applied the law on prescription to the facts of the case. The trial court erred in not considering the prescriptive period, which was raised as a defense by the respondent. The appellate court's determination that the action had prescribed was based on a correct interpretation of Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code and the established jurisprudence on the accrual of a cause of action. The Supreme Court's role in a petition for review on certiorari is to determine if there was any reversible error of law committed by the appellate court. In this instance, the appellate court's application of the prescriptive period was legally sound, and thus, its decision was upheld.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the petitioners' action for specific performance had prescribed. The Court reiterated that under Article 1144(1) of the Civil Code, an action upon a written contract must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. In this case, the right of action accrued on September 22, 1982, when the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-51153 was issued in the respondent's name, as this was the point when the petitioners could have tendered the remaining balance and demanded the execution of a deed of sale. Since the complaint was filed on August 15, 1995, almost thirteen years later, the action had clearly prescribed, and the petitioners' claim of not being informed of the title's issuance was unavailing due to constructive notice.