Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9405)
Facts:
Anacleto Conde, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Felix Cuence and Elpidia Malaga, Defendants and Appellees, G.R. No. L-9405, July 31, 1956, the Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, A., J., writing for the Court.In March 15, 1943, Anacleto Conde executed a deed purporting to convey a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 66165 (Iloilo) to spouses Felix Cuenca and Elipidia Malaga for P225.00, the instrument reciting a sale subject to a right of repurchase within three years. About seven years later, on February 7, 1951, Conde filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo alleging that the instrument was not a true sale but in reality a mortgage, that he never intended to sell his only land, and that he discovered in the Register of Deeds that his alleged mortgage had been recorded as a deed of sale and that his original certificate had been cancelled and a new title issued in the defendants’ names.
The complaint prayed that the deed of sale be declared null and void ab initio and be treated as a mortgage (i.e., relief that would effect reformation of the instrument). The defendants denied that a mortgage was ever intended and contended that the instrument was a sale with right of repurchase and, because the repurchase period was not exercised, title consolidated in their names; they stated a new title was issued to them on January 3, 1947. Before trial, defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the proper remedy was reformation, not annulment, and alternatively that the action had prescribed under Article 1391 of the New Civil Code (four-year prescriptive period for annulment of contracts).
The trial court granted the mot...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the complaint state a cause of action such that dismissal was improper because the proper remedy was reformation under the Civil Code rather than annulment?
- If the action is one for reformation, was it barred by prescription when filed on ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)