G.R. No. L-13246 - Calero vs. Carion y Santa Marina

In early 1937, Federico Calero (plaintiff) proposed to Enrique Carrion (father of defendants Emilia and Maria Carrion) a joint purchase of a property (a finca situated in Plaza Santa Cruz) for P250,000.00: P25,000 down payment (P15,000 from Enrique Carrion and P10,000 from Calero), with the balance payable in ten years.
Enrique Carrion accepted, authorizing Calero to proceed with the transaction in the names of his daughters, the defendants.
During Enrique’s absence from the Philippines, negotiations continued through his attorney and administrator, Santiago Carrion, who also represented the defendants.

Santiago Carrion explained the complexity of establishing a community of property, requiring monthly accounting and consultations for repairs and improvements.
To avoid these difficulties, Santiago proposed purchasing the finca exclusively in the defendants’ names, with the obligation to pay Calero twenty percent (20%) of the profits upon sale.
Calero accepted on the understanding that the property would be sold when a buyer offered at least P300,000.
On May 28, 1937, the parties executed a formal contract (“Exhibit A”) confirming that defendants would pay Calero 20% of any proceeds from the sale, after deducting the amount paid for the property.

Since 1937, Calero made several offers to defendants to sell the property at prices offered by potential buyers.
Calero currently has a buyer offering P1,455,900, but defendants refuse to sell despite the large profit.
Defendants have profited from the rental income without sharing this with Calero.
Calero requested an accounting of income and expenses, but the defendants refused.
Calero claims he has suffered damages and seeks payment of 20% of the net profit, amounting to P241,180, reflecting the difference between the purchase price and the current offer.

Plaintiff filed his complaint on December 20, 1956.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging failure to state a cause of action and prescription (statute of limitations).
The court initially required plaintiff to amend his complaint to have it specify a reasonable period for sale under Article 1197 of the Civil Code.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 15, 1957, adding a request for the court to fix a three-month period for sale at no less than the current offer price.
Defendants renewed their motion to dismiss on grounds including prescription, asserting the cause of action arose in 1937 and prescribed after 10 years.
After several motions and oppositions, the trial court, on October 1, 1957, dismissed the complaint on the ground that it was barred by prescription, relying on jurisprudence interpreting the ten-year prescription period for such actions.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

Whether the agreement between plaintiff and defendants created an implied trust (fideicomiso implicito) exempt from prescription under Articles 1452 and 1453 of the Civil Code.
Whether the plaintiff’s cause of action to have the court fix the period within which defendants must sell the property has prescribed under the ten-year statutory period.
Whether the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued only when defendants refused to sell after formal demand, thereby delaying the commencement of prescription.