Case Digest on Leonardo vs Maravilla
2
CASE DIGEST: Leopoldo C. Leonardo vs. Virginia Torres Maravilla (Digested by: Frances Katherine G. Miraflor) Facts: Petitioner claims that he is the lawful owner of a 11!1."# s$uare meter lot Pasay %ity which is co&ered by '%' o. *!! (*+!1!). ,aid lot was con& res-ondents -redecessor/in/interest to 0usebio eonardo 2o3as on 4ugust " 156 by e3ecuting a deed of absolute sale. 0usebio eonardo 2o3as then sold said lot to -et ,e-tember 5 156 . 7n ,e-tember 8 155* -etitioner filed a com-laint against the res-ondents fo of Possession of Pro-erty 7wners Du-licate %ertificate of 'itle 2entals and Damages. Petitioner alleges that he filed the case against res-ondents only in 155* because abroad. 2es-ondents countered that since 15"* they ha&e been in o-en and -eaceful -o of said lot in the conce-t of owners. 7n 9uly ! 155! the trial court dismissed -etitioner s com-laint on the gro -rescri-tion on laches. Petitioner a--ealed to the %ourt of 4--eals whic court s decision. 'he motion for reconsideration was denied on May 15 ###. ence the instant -etition to set aside the decision of the %ourt of 4--eals ;ssue: <hether or not -etitioner s action is barred by -rescri-tion and laches. eld: Petioner s action is barred by -rescri-tion and laches. Petitioner s action is an action for s-ecific -erformance i.e. to enforce t absolute sale allegedly e3ecuted in his fa&or. Pursuant to 4rticle 11++ of the %i&i action for s-ecific -erformance -rescribes in 1# years from the accrual of the righ contract of sale there is a reci-rocal obligation to -ay the -urchase -rice and th deli&ery of the thing sold which obligations gi&e rise to breach. ere -etitione for s-ecific -erformance or rescission arose when deli&ery of the thing sold was no ,e-tember 5 156 des-ite the -ayment of the -urchase -rice. ence from 156 to -etitioner filed the instant case 1 years had ela-sed barring the institution of which is definitely beyond the 1# year -rescri-ti&e -eriod.
-
Upload
kay-miraflor -
Category
Documents
-
view
14 -
download
1
description
Case on Land Title and Deeds
Transcript of Case Digest on Leonardo vs Maravilla
CASE DIGEST:
Leopoldo C. Leonardo vs. Virginia Torres Maravilla(Digested by: Frances Katherine G. Miraflor)
Facts:Petitioner claims that he is the lawful owner of a 1,151.80 square meter lot located in Pasay City which is covered by TCT No. 2355 (34515). Said lot was conveyed by the respondents predecessor-in-interest to Eusebio Leonardo Roxas on August 28, 1972 by executing a deed of absolute sale. Eusebio Leonardo Roxas then sold said lot to petitioner on September 29, 1972.
On September 6, 1993, petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents for Delivery of Possession of Property, Owners Duplicate Certificate of Title, Rentals and Damages. Petitioner alleges that he filed the case against respondents only in 1993 because he was living abroad.
Respondents countered that since 1983, they have been in open and peaceful possession of said lot in the concept of owners.On July 25, 1995, the trial court dismissed petitioners complaint on the ground of prescription on laches. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial courts decision. The motion for reconsideration was denied on May 19, 2000.Hence, the instant petition to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioners action is barred by prescription and laches.
Held:
Petioners action is barred by prescription and laches. Petitioners action is an action for specific performance, i.e., to enforce the deed of absolute sale allegedly executed in his favor. Pursuant to Article 1144 of the Civil Code, an action for specific performance prescribes in 10 years from the accrual of the right of action. In a contract of sale, there is a reciprocal obligation to pay the purchase price and the corresponding delivery of the thing sold, which obligations give rise to breach. Here, petitioners right of action for specific performance or rescission arose when delivery of the thing sold was not effected on September 29, 1972, despite the payment of the purchase price. Hence, from 1972 to 1993, when petitioner filed the instant case, 21 years had elapsed barring the institution of petitioners action which is definitely beyond the 10 year prescriptive period.
