Case Digest (G.R. No. L-23749)
Facts:
Faustino Cruz v. J. M. Tuason & Company, Inc., et al., G.R. No. L-23749, April 29, 1977, Supreme Court Second Division, Barredo, J., writing for the Court. Plaintiff-appellant Faustino Cruz sued defendants-appellees J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and Gregorio Araneta, Inc. in Civil Case No. Q-7751 in the Court of First Instance of Quezon City seeking (1) reimbursement for improvements and expenses he allegedly made on land occupied by the Deudor family and now held by defendants, and (2) specific performance — i.e., to compel defendants to convey to him 3,000 square meters of land which they had allegedly promised as consideration for his services as intermediary in procuring a compromise between defendants and the Deudors.According to the complaint, Cruz entered into an agreement with the Deudors in 1948 to improve and subdivide about 50 quinones (including some 20 quinones he actually occupied), incurring labor valued at P38,400 and expenses of P7,781.74. Separately, beginning in 1952 Cruz acted as intermediary to procure a compromise in Civil Case No. Q-135; a compromise was allegedly entered into on March 16, 1953 and approved April 11, 1953, and defendants had purportedly agreed to convey the 3,000 sq. m. to Cruz, with documents to be delivered within ten years from signing the compromise.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss (Jan.–Feb. 1964) raising three grounds: (1) the complaint failed to state a cause of action as to the reimbursement claim because Cruz’s contract was with the Deudors and not with defendants; (2) the alleged promise to convey the 3,000 sq. m. was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds (Art. 1403, Civil Code) for lack of a writing; and (3) the action was barred by prescription. The trial court issued an order on August 13, 1964 granting dismissal on those grounds, finding inter alia that the land had been registered in Tuason’s predecessors’ name since 1914 (citing earlier Supreme Court decisions) and that the Statute of Frauds applied; it further held the action...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was Cruz’s appeal timely, or was the trial court’s order final and executory because his motion for reconsideration did not suspend the appeal period?
- Was the trial court correct in applying the Statute of Frauds (Art. 1403, Sec. 2(e), Civil Code) to bar Cruz’s claim to compel conveyance of 3,000 sq. m.?
- Did Cruz’s action to compel conveyance prescribe before he filed the complaint?
- Did the complaint state a cause of action against defendants for reimbursement under the doctrine...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)