G.R. No. 222442 - Selerio vs. Bancasan

Nieves Selerio, the petitioner, is the claimant, occupant, and possessor of Lot 2, Block 14 at Garcia Heights, Bajada, Davao City, a 600‑square meter property.
Tregidio B. Bancasan, the respondent, is the party to whom the property was conveyed by a Deed of Transfer and Waiver of Rights, Interests, and Improvements.

On September 18, 1993, Nieves executed a Deed transferring and selling the property to Tregidio for P200,000.00.
The Deed stipulated that 50% of the consideration was paid immediately while the balance was conditioned upon Nieves and her family vacating the property no later than April 30, 1994.
The language of the Deed indicates an immediate conveyance of ownership despite the encumbrance of a condition precedent (vacation of the premises).

A partition case was docketed (Civil Case No. 22,601-94) involving Jose Selerio and Cecilia Ababo, who claimed to be the illegitimate children of Nieves’ husband.
In that case, a Compromise Agreement was executed on September 2, 1997, wherein the parties agreed to proceed with the sale of the subject property and the other parties waived their rights over the property.

On February 2, 2007, Tregidio, by means of a demand letter sent through counsel, called upon petitioners to vacate the property.
The demand was ignored, prompting Tregidio to file a Complaint for Recovery of Possession, Damages, and Attorney’s Fees on February 28, 2007.
Nieves and Alicia Selerio countered the Complaint by alleging that Nieves was induced under duress and in a state of physical incapacity (due to a serious eye illness) to sign the Deed, and further contended that the document was akin to a contract to sell subject to conditions rather than an absolute transfer.

The RTC, Branch 11, Davao City, held that although Tregidio filed a recovery action, the true nature of the dispute was the enforcement of the conditions in the Deed, amounting to specific performance of a written contract of sale.
Citing Article 1144 of the Civil Code, which prescribes a 10‑year period for actions based on written contracts, the RTC found that Tregidio’s action had prescribed as it was filed long after petitioners were required to vacate (April 30, 1994).
Furthermore, the RTC opined that no perfected sale had occurred since the essential acts of delivery and complete payment were lacking.

The CA reversed the RTC’s dismissal by holding that a contract of sale had been perfected by mere consent as expressed in the Deed.
The CA reasoned that the ownership of the property had been constructively transferred to Tregidio and that petitioners continued possession only by tolerance.
Importantly, the CA determined that the prescriptive period did not start until February 2, 2007, when petitioners failed to vacate after being duly demanded to do so, thus rendering the action timely filed.
The CA also denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, maintaining that Tregidio’s recovery action was within the prescribed period.

Whether or not respondent Tregidio’s cause of action for recovery of possession has prescribed.

Determines if the 10‑year prescriptive period under Article 1144 of the Civil Code applies from the date of the breach (non‑vacation on April 30, 1994) or from a later event evidencing possession (i.e., the response to the February 2, 2007 demand).

Whether the contract of sale was perfected by mere consent despite the noted conditions and the absence of actual delivery and full payment.

Involves the interpretation of the Deed’s terms which stipulated a condition (vacation of the property) but also expressed an immediate transfer of ownership.

Whether petitioners’ alternative defenses—including allegations of fraud, undue influence, and mistake—should be adjudicated on merits or relegated as hypothetical in the context of the prescription issue.

Examines if these defenses are prematurely dismissed by accepting as proven certain disputed facts that require trial.