Title
Vda. de Alvir vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 81833
Decision Date
Apr 18, 1989
A dispute over a San Juan property sold to an American, Howard Weber, by the Alvir heirs. Weber's claim for specific performance was dismissed due to prescription, as his action was filed over 10 years after payment completion.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-13918)

Applicable Law

The decision is grounded in the 1987 Philippine Constitution, with particular emphasis on issues concerning property rights, the doctrine of prescription, and contract law under the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Background of the Case

In November 1961, the petitioners executed a deed of sale transferring their interests in the property to Howard J. Weber, who made an initial payment of ₱3,000. Subsequent payments were contingent on the successful negotiation of business interests. In the probate proceedings concerning the estate of Antonio D. Alvir, a court-approved partition led to Douglas Alvir inheriting the disputed property. The relationship between the parties complicated due to the occupation of the property by Weber's in-laws, which spawned several legal actions over the years.

Initial Legal Proceedings

Petitioner Douglas Alvir filed an ejectment complaint in 1973 against the occupants of the property, which was dismissed for failure to include Weber as a necessary party. Weber then initiated legal proceedings against the petitioners in 1974, seeking specific performance and damages. Subsequent rulings found in favor of Weber, leading to appeals by petitioners to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC), which were ultimately dismissed.

Arguments Before the Courts

Petitioners presented several errors on appeal, including claims of constitutional violations regarding alien ownership of land, improper consideration of evidence, misinterpretation of the law on prescription, and changes in Weber's legal strategy regarding his cause of action—from specific performance to damages—affecting the legitimacy of the awarded sums.

Prescription of Action

The IAC found that prescription had not set in due to the determination of the rights of the parties only occurring with the finalization of the probate proceedings in 1968. This conclusion held that the cause of action did not arise until that determination was made. As such, Weber's complaint filed in 1974 was considered timely.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the arguments surrounding the prescription of actions in contracts, concluding that the cause of action for Weber indeed accrued when the payment of the sale balance was completed on July 25, 1963. The Court rejected the appellate court's reasoning that the cause of action depended on the determination of the intestate proceedings, empha

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.