solid homes v tan

8/10/2019 Solid Homes v Tan

1/8

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 145156-57. July 29, 2005]

SO !" #OMES, !NC., Petitioner, vs . SPOUSES $NC#ET$ %. T$N &'(COR$)ON "E JESUS T$N, Respondents .

" E C ! S ! O N

G$RC!$, J .*

In this appeal by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule ! of theRules of "ourt# petitioner Solid Ho$es# Inc% ur&es us to nullify and set aside thefollowin& issuances of the "ourt of 'ppeals in C$-G.R. SP No. 5+44+ and 55+24 #to wit(

)% " s o' (&/ ( M&y 2+, 2000 #*)+ settin& aside an earlier decision of the Office ofthe President in a co$plaint for breach of obli&ation filed by the hereinrespondents a&ainst the petitioner in connection with the sale of a subdivision lot,and

-% R solu/ o' (&/ ( S / 3 12, 2000 #*-+ denyin& petitioner.s $otion forreconsideration%

The $aterial facts# undisputed by the parties# $ay be briefly stated# as follows(

On 'pril /# )012# petitioner Solid Ho$es# Inc%# sold to the spouses 3oe 4y andMyrna 4y a subdivision lot with an area of )#250 s6uare $eters# $ore particularlyidentified as 7ot )1# 8loc9 -# located at petitioner.s 7oyola :rand Villas Subdivision#;ue


2/8

'ccordin&ly# in a letter dated Dece$ber )1# )00!# respondents de$anded onpetitioner to provide the needed utility syste$s and clear the area of s6uatters andother obstructions by the end of 3anuary# )005 to enable the$ to start theconstruction of their house thereon and to allow other lot owners in the area a fullaccess to and peaceful possession of their respective lots# confor$ably with P%D% No%0!/ which re6uires an owner or developer of a subdivision proEect to develop thesa$e within one year fro$ the issuance of its license%

Havin& received no reply fro$ petitioner# respondents filed with the Bield Office of the Housin& and 7and 4se Re&ulatory 8oard =H74R8># N"R a co$plaint for specificperfor$ance and da$a&es therein prayin inter alia # that petitioner be ordered toprovide the needed facilities in the pre$ises and rid the sa$e of s6uatters, or# inthe alternative# for petitioner to replace respondents. property with another lot inthe sa$e subdivision where there are facilities and sans s6uatters%

'fter due proceedin&s# the Housin& and 7and 4se 'rbiter# in a decision datedSepte$ber )/# )005# *?+ rendered Eud&$ent for the respondents by directin&petitioner(

a% to perfor$ its obli&ation to provide subdivision facilities in the subEect pre$ises andto rid the pre$ises of s6uatters% .In the alternative# at the option of co$plainantsFFF to replace subEect lot with a lot of si$ilar si


3/8

event petitioner . fails to replace subject lot with a lot of similar size and withavailable facilities located in the subdivision, because it had already sold or transferred all of its properties in the subdivision. Respondents ar&ued that it wouldbe $ore in accord with e6uity and fair play if they will be paid the & 3 &3 /8&lu of the lot in 6uestion and not $erely its purchase price# should there be noavailable lot with facilities in the area%

However# in a resolution dated Septe$ber --# )000# *5+ O%P% denied respondents.$otion%

8oth parties then went to the "ourt of 'ppeals via their respective petitions forreview# thereat separately doc9eted as C$- G.R. SP No. 5+44+ =for petitioners>and C$-G.R. SP No. 55+24 =for respondent>% Pursuant to Section )# Rule ?) of theRules of the "ourt# the appellate court ordered the consolidation of the two =->petitions%

's stated at the threshold hereof# the "ourt of 'ppeals# in its consolidated ( s o'(&/ ( M&y 2+, 2000 #*/+ set aside that of the O%P% and affir$ed the earlier decision

dated 'pril )5# )00/ of the H74R8 8oard of "o$$issioners# but subEect to the$odification that petitioner shall pay respondents the u33 '/ &3 / 8&lu of thelot# not $erely its purchase price# should there be no $ore available lots withfacilities in petitioner.s 7oyola :rand Villas Subdivision% e 6uote the decretalportion of the appellate court.s decision(

HGRGBORG# Pre$ises "onsidered# the assailed Decision dated 2? 3une )000 is hereby SET$S!"E and the Decision of the H74R8 dated )5 'pril )00/ is hereby $ !RME" subject tothe modification that if there is no $ore available lot in 7oyola :rand Villas to replacesubEect lot# Solid Ho$es# Inc% should pay the spouses Tan the current $ar9et value of theirlot%

SO ORDGRGD%

This ti$e# petitioner $oved for reconsideration but its $otion was denied by thesa$e court in its 3 solu/ o' o S / 3 12, 2000 %*1+chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Hence# petitioner.s present recourse# contendin& that the "ourt of 'ppeals erred .

)% IN R47IN: TH'T PRGS"RIPTION H'S NOT SGTAIN,

-% IN 'PP7JIN: THG PRIN"IP7G ON G;4ITJ 'S ':'INST POSITIVG 7' TO THGPRG34DI"G OB HGRGIN PGTITIONGR, 'ND

?% IN R47IN: TH'T PGTITIONGR SHO47D P'J RGSPONDGNTS THG "4RRGNTM'RCGT V'74G OB THG 7OT IN ;4GSTION%

e "EN %

The errors assi&ned actually si$$ered down to only two =-> issues#na$ely( &"' whether or not respondents. ri&ht to brin& the instant case a&ainstpetitioner has already prescribed, and &(' in the event respondents opt to rescind
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/145156_57.php#_ftn6http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/145156_57.php#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/145156_57.php#_ftn8http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/145156_57.php#_ftn6http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/145156_57.php#_ftn7http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/145156_57.php#_ftn8


4/8

the contract# should petitioner pay the$ $erely the price they paid for the lot plusinterest or the current $ar9et value thereof%

In the $atter of prescription# it is petitioner.s posture that respondents. ri&ht tobrin& the action a&ainst it has already prescribed# ar&uin& that the )2Ayearprescriptive period therefor should be rec9oned fro$ 'pril /# )012 when petitioner

ori&inally sold the lot in 6uestion to the spouses 3oe 4y and Myrna 4y# or# at thelatest fro$ Bebruary# )01!# when respondents ac6uired the sa$e lot fro$ the 4yspouses% Hence# and as respondents. action was filed with the H74R8 Bield Officeonly on 'pril )# )005 or after $ore than ten =)2> years# it follows that the sa$ewas filed out of ti$e and# therefore# ou&ht to have been dis$issed%

e disa&ree%

There can be no debate at all on the le&al postulate that the prescriptive period forbrin&in& action for specific perfor$ance# as here# prescribes in ten =)2> years% Thisis so provided in 'rticle )) of the "ivil "ode% hat we cannot a&ree on with thepetitioner# and about which petitioner is in serious error# is its sub$ission that the

)2Ayear prescriptive period should co$$ence either on 'pril /# )012# whenpetitioner ori&inally sold the lot to spouses 4y, or in Bebruary# )01!# when therespondents thereafter bou&ht the sa$e lot fro$ the 4y couple% Obviously#petitioner $isread 'rticle )) which specifically provides that the )2Ayear periodtherein referred to co$$ences to run only fro$ the ti$e the ri&ht of actionaccrues% e 6uote in full the codal provision relied upon by petitioner(

'rticle )) % The followin& actions $ust be brou&ht within / ' y &3s 3o / / /3 : / o & / o' & 3u s (

=)> 4pon a written contract,

=-> 4pon an obli&ation created by law,

=?> 4pon a Eud&$ent =G$phasis supplied>%

If not on a written contract# petitioner.s obli&ation to introduce i$prove$ents onthe area in 6uestion arises fro$ law# $ore specifically P%D% 0!/# as a$ended by P%D%)-)5# Section ?) of which pertinently reads(

SG"TION ?)% )oads, Alleys, Sidewal*s and +pen Spaces. . The owner as developer of asubdivision shall provide ade6uate roads# alleys and sidewal9s% Bor subdivision proEects one=)> hectare or $ore# the owner or developer shall reserve thirty percent =?2K> of the &rossarea for open space%

The neFt in6uiry# then# is when the respondents. cause of action accrued% Ourearlier rulin& in anco !ilipino Savin s and -ort a e an* vs. CA *0+ provides theanswer(

Thus# the period of prescription of any action is rec9oned only fro$ the date the cause ofaction accrued% $'( & &us o & / o' &3 s s ; ' / &/ ; s oul( &8 ' (o'

s 'o/ (o' , o3 / &/ ; s oul( 'o/ &8 ' (o' s (o' % The period should not
http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/145156_57.php#_ftn9http://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/jul2005/145156_57.php#_ftn9


5/8

be $ade to retroact to the date of eFecution of the contract on 3anuary )!# )0/! as clai$edby the petitioner for at that ti$e# there would be no way for the respondents to 9now of theviolation of their ri&hts% The "ourt of 'ppeals therefore correctly found that respondents.cause of action accrued on October ?2# )0/1# the date they received the state$ent ofaccount showin& the increased rate of interest# for it was only fro$ that $o$ent that theydiscovered the petitioner.s unilateral increase thereof% e 6uote with approval the pertinent

portions of the "ourt of 'ppeals decision as follows(

It is the le&al possibility of brin&in& the action that deter$ines the startin& point for theco$putation of the period of prescription% *)2+ In fine# the tenAyear prescriptive period is tobe rec9oned fro$ the accrual of the 'ppellee.s ri&ht of action# not necessarily on the verydate of the eFecution of the contracts subEect of the action *))+ =G$phasis supplied>

In law# a cause of action eFists when the followin& re6uisites concur# to wit( &"' ari&ht in favor of the plaintiff by whatever $eans and under whatever law it arises oris created, &(' an obli&ation on the part on the defendant to respect such ri&ht,and & ' an act or o$ission on the part of such defendant violative of the ri&ht of theplaintiff% *)-+ chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Ti$e and a&ain# we have e$phasi


6/8

the obli&ee $ay brin& an action a&ainst the obli&or does not co$$ence to run untila de$and is $ade%

ith the reality that in this case# respondents $ade their written de$and uponpetitioner to perfor$ what is incu$bent upon it only on Dece$ber )1# )00!# it wasonly fro$ that date when the )2Ayear prescriptive period under 'rticle ))

co$$enced to run% 'nd since respondents. co$plaint for specific perfor$ance wasfiled with the Bield Office of the H74R8 only on 'pril )# )005# or less than four = >$onths after the date of their de$and# petitioner.s reliance on prescription of action is si$ply without any le& to stand on%

This brin&s us to the second 6uestion%

Petitioner sub$its as erroneous the appellate court.s rulin& that 0e12uity and justicedictate that the injured party should be paid the mar*et value of the lot, otherwise,respondents Solid Homes, Inc. 3 4urita Soliven would enrich themselves at thee5pense of herein lot owners when they sell the same lot at the present mar*et value. To petitioner# e6uity $ay be availed of only in the absence of and never

a&ainst statutory law or Eudicial rules of procedure% It then invo9es 'rticle )?1! of the New "ivil "ode# which provides(

'rticle )?1!% Rescission creates the obli&ation to return the thin&s which were the obEect ofthe contract# to&ether with their fruits# and the price with its interests, conse6uently# it canbe carried out only when he who de$ands rescission can return whatever he $ay beobli&ed to restore%

On surface# petitioner.s ar&u$ent appears infallible% However# a closer loo9 at ourlaws and the reason and spirit behind their enact$ent# as well as established

Eurisprudence# ne&ates petitioner.s thesis%

It is true that this "ourt have# in the past# applied the provision of 'rticle )?1! tocases of rescission due to breach of obli&ation under 'rticle ))0)% *)!+ 8ut thisnotwithstandin the "ourt finds no reason to alter the rulin& of the "ourt of 'ppeals%

In $any instances# this "ourt has refused to apply the literal i$port of a particularprovision of law when to do so would lead to unEust# unfair and absurd results% 'fterall# it is the function of courts to see to it that Eustice is dispensed# fairness isobserved and absurdity prevented% So it is that in Commissioner of Internal )evenue vs. Solidban* Corporation #*)5+ we $ade the followin& pronounce$ent(

$ l / 3&l & l &/ o' o &'y &3/ o & s/&/u/ s /o 3 < / ( / ; ll o 3&/

u'


7/8

FFF [S/&/u/ s s oul( 3 8 & s 's l o's/3u / o', su &s ; ll : 8 / /o /l : sl&/ 8 '/ '/ o' &'( so &s /o &8o ( &' u'


8/8

*?+ Rollo# pp% ?1A % cralaw

* + Rollo# pp% !A!-% cralaw

*!+ Rollo# pp% !?A!1% cralaw

*5+ Rollo# pp% !0A5)% cralaw

*/+ Rollo# pp% 11A)2-% cralaw

*1+ Supra. cralaw

*0+ ?11 Phils% -/# ?0A 2 *-222+% cralaw

*)2+ "itin& Constancia C. Telentino vs. Court of Appeals, et al. # )5- S"R' 55% cralaw

*))+ "itin& 9a a Telephone Co. Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. # -?2 S"R' ?!)% cralaw

*)-+ :ee, et al. vs. CA # )0 Phils% ?0-# )0 *-22)+% cralaw

*)?+ 'rticle ))50% Those obli&ed to deliver or to do so$ethin& incur in delay fro$ theti$e the obli&ee Eudicially or eFtraEudicially de$ands fro$ the$ the fulfill$entof their obli&ation% cralaw

*) + --) S"R' ))0# )- *)00?+% cralaw

*)!+ ;. ., 4alay, Inc. vs. Clave # )- S"R' 5?1 *)01?+ and

solid homes v tan

Documents