G.R. No. 100594. March 10, 1993.] expired before she brought her action Negros Occidental.

egros Occidental. Relative to said

to recover title. However, the period case we shall quote the findings of fact
BINALBAGAN TECH. INC., and HERMILO 1974 to 1982 should be deducted in of the Court of Appeals in its decision
J. NAVA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF computing the prescriptive period for dated October 30, 1978 in CA-G.R. No.
APPEALS, MAGDALENA L. the reason that from 1974 to 1982, 4211-R:
PUENTEVELLA, ANGELINA P. ECHAUS, private respondent Echaus was not in a
ROMULO L. PUENTEVELLA, RENATO L. legal position to initiate action against
PUENTEVELLA, NOLI L. PUENTEVELLA
To have a better perspective of the
petitioner since as aforestated, through background facts leading to the filing of
and NELIA LOURDES P. JACINTO,
no fault of hers, her warranty against this instant case on appeal, there is a
respondents.
eviction was breached. Deducting eight need to make reference to the
years (1974 to 1982) from the period circumstances surrounding the filing of
Mateo Valenzuela for petitioners. 1967 to 1982, only seven years Civil Case No. 7435, to wit:
elapsed. Consequently, Civil Case No.
Hilado, Hagad & Hilado for private 1354 was filed within the 10-year
respondents. The intestate estate of the late Luis B.
prescriptive period. Puentebella as registered owner of
several subdivision lots, specifically
SYLLABUS DECISION mentioned in paragraph 2 of plaintiffs'
complaint, thru Judicial Administratrix,
1. CIVIL LAW; OBLIGATIONS AND MELO, J p: Angelina L. Puentevella sold said
CONTRACTS; PARTY CANNOT aforementioned lots to Raul Javellana
DEMAND PERFORMANCE OF AN
The petition for review on certiorari now with the condition that the vendee-
OBLIGATION UNLESS HE IS IN A
before us seeks to reverse the decision promisee would not transfer his rights
POSITION TO COMPLY WITH HIS
OWN OBLIGATIONS. — A party to a of the Court of Appeals promulgated on to said lots without the express consent
March 27, 1991 in CA-G.R. CV No. of Puentevella and that in case of the
contract cannot demand performance cancellation of the contract by reason
24635 (de Pano, Cacdac (P), and
of the other party's obligations unless of the violation of any of the terms
Vailoces, JJ .).
he is in a position to comply with his thereof, all payments therefor made
own obligations. Similarly, the right to and all improvements introduced on the
rescind a contract can be demanded The facts of the case, as borne out by
the record, are as follows: property shall pertain to the promissor
only if a party thereto is ready, willing and shall be considered as rentals for
and able to comply with his own the use and occupation thereof.
obligations thereunder (Art. 1191, Civil On May 11, 1967, private respondents,
Code; Seva vs. Berwin, 48 Phil. 581 through Angelina P. Echaus, in her
Javellana having failed to pay the
[1926]; Paras, Civil Code of the capacity as Judicial Administrator of the
Philippines, 12th ed. Vol. IV, p. 200). In intestate estate of Luis B. Puentevella, installments for a period of five years,
a contract of sale, the vendor is bound executed a Contract to Sell and a Deed Civil Case No. 7435 was filed by
defendant Puentevella against Raul
to transfer the ownership of and deliver, of Sale of forty-two subdivision lots
Javellana and the Southern Negros
as well as warrant, the thing which is within the Phib-Khik Subdivision of the
Colleges which was impleaded as a
the object of the sale (Art. 1495, Civil Puentebella family, conveying and
party defendant it being in actual
Code); he warrants that the buyer shall, transferring said lots to petitioner
from the time ownership is passed, Binalbagan Tech., Inc. (hereinafter possession thereof, for the rescission of
have and enjoy the legal and peaceful referred to as Binalbagan). In turn their contract to sell and the recovery of
possession of the lots and buildings
possession of the thing. Binalbagan, through its president,
with damages.
petitioner Hermilio J. Nava (hereinafter
2. ID.; PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD referred to as Nava), executed an
WITHIN WHICH TO INSTITUTE Acknowledgment of Debt with Accordingly, after trial, judgment was
ACTION UPON A WRITTEN Mortgage Agreement, mortgaging said rendered in favor of Puentevella and
lots in favor of the estate of thereafter, defendants Deputy Sheriffs
CONTRACT; CASE AT BAR. — The
Puentebella. served a copy of the writ of execution
prescriptive period within which to
on the Acting Director of the Southern
institute an action upon a written
contract is ten years (Art. 1144, Civil Upon the transfer to Binalbagan of titles Negros College and delivered
Code). The cause of action of private to the 42 subdivision lots, said possession of the lots and buildings to
defendant Puentevella's representative,
respondent Echaus is based on the petitioner took possession of the lots
Mrs. Manuel Gentapanan, and further
deed of sale executed on May 11, and the building and improvements
levied execution on the books and
1967, whereby ownership of the thereon. Binalbagan started operating a
school equipment, supplies, library,
subdivision lots was transferred to school on the property from 1967 when
petitioner. She filed Civil Case No. the titles and possession of the lots apparatus, etc. to satisfy the monetary
1354 for recovery of title and damages were transferred to it. portion of the judgment under execution
on October 27, 1967. Said books,
only on October 8, 1982. From May 11,
equipment, etc. as reflected in the
1967 to October 8, 1982, more than It appears that there was a pending Depositary Receipt, (Exh. "B") dated
fifteen (15) years elapsed. Seemingly, case, Civil Case No. 7435 of Regional October 28, 1965, were delivered by
the 10-year prescriptive period had Trial Court stationed at Himamaylan,
the Sheriffs to the Acting Director of the entered in CA-G.R. No. 42211, and the WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Southern Negros College as depositary record of the case was remanded to the the appealed decision is REVERSED
of the same. court of origin on December 22, 1981. and SET ASIDE and a new one is
Consequently, in 1982 the judgment in rendered ordering the appellee
Came December 29, 1965 when the Civil Case No. 7435 was finally Binalbagan Tech. Inc., through any of
plaintiffs in the instant case on appeal executed and enforced, and petitioner its officers, to execute a deed of
filed their Third-Party Claim based on was restored to the possession of the conveyance or any other instrument,
an alleged Deed of Sale executed in subdivision lots on May 31, 1982. It will transferring and returning unto the
their favor by spouses Jose and Lolita be noted that petitioner was not in appellants the ownership and titles of
Lopez, thus Puentevella was possession of the lots from 1974 to the subject 42 subdivision lots. Costs
constrained to assert physical May 31, 1982. against appellees. (pp. 51-52, Rollo)
possession of the premises to
counteract the fictitious and After petitioner Binalbagan was again Thus, this petition for review on
unenforceable claim of herein plaintiffs. placed in possession of the subdivision certiorari wherein petitioners assign the
lots, private respondent Angelina following alleged errors of the Court of
Upon the filing of the instant case for Echaus demanded payment from Appeals:
injunction and damages on January 3, petitioner Binalbagan for the
1966, an ex-parte writ of preliminary subdivision lots, enclosing in the letter First Error
injunction was issued by the Honorable of demand a statement of account as of
Presiding Judge Carlos Abiera, which September 1982 showing a total The Court of Appeals erred in holding
order, however, was elevated to the amount due of P367,509.93,
that the cause of action of the
Honorable Court of Appeals which representing the price of the land and
respondents has not prescribed.
issued a writ of preliminary injunction accrued interest as of that date.
ordering Judge Carlos Abiera or any Second Error
other persons or persons in his behalf As petitioner Binalbagan failed to effect
to refrain from further enforcing the payment, private respondent Angelina
injunction issued by him in this case P. Echaus filed on October 8, 1982 The Court of Appeals erred in holding
and from further issuing any other writs Civil Case No. 1354 of the Regional that Civil Case No. 293 interrupts the
or prohibitions which would in any Trial Court of the Sixth Judicial Region running of the period of the
manner affect the enforcement of the stationed in Himamaylan, Negros prescription.
judgment rendered in Civil Case 7435, Occidental against petitioners for
pending the finality of the decision of recovery of title and damages. An Third Error
the Honorable Court of Appeals in the amended complaint was filed by private
latter case. Thus, defendant respondent Angelina P. Echaus by The Court of Appeals erred in citing the
Puentevella was restored to the including her mother, brothers, and cases of David-Garlitos and Rivero vs.
possession of the lots and buildings sisters as co-plaintiffs, which was Rivero to support its contention that the
subject of this case. However, plaintiffs admitted by the trial court on March 18, period of prescription was interrupted in
filed a petition for review with the 1983. the case at bar.
Supreme Court which issued a
restraining order against the sale of the After trial, the trial court rendered a Fourth Error
properties claimed by the spouses- decision on August 30, 1989, the
plaintiffs [in Abierra vs. Court of dispositive portion of which reads as The finding of facts of the Honorable
Appeals, 45 SCRA 314]. follows: Court of Appeals in reversing the lower
court decision has no basis and is
When the Supreme Court dissolved the IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and contradicted by the evidence on record
aforesaid injunction issued by the Court inasmuch as there is no fraud and of the case at bar as well as the
of Appeals, possession of the building since the action on the written contract, admission of parties." (p. 16, Rollo)
and other property was taken from Exh. "C", has long prescribed, judgment
petitioner Binalbagan and given to the is hereby rendered in favor of the
The main issue of this case is: Whether
third-party claimants, the de la Cruz defendants and against the plaintiffs private respondents' cause of action in
spouses. Petitioner Binalbagan dismissing the amended complaint. Civil Case No. 1354 is barred by
transferred its school to another
prescription.
location. In the meantime, an appeal
The counterclaim is likewise dismissed
was interposed by the defendants in
for lack of sufficient proof. Each shall On this point the Court of Appeals held:
Civil Case No. 293 with the Court of
bear their respective expenses of
Appeals where the appeal was
litigation (pp. 71-72, Rollo).
docketed as CA-G.R. No. 42211-R. On As it is evident that there was an
October 30, 1978, the Court of Appeals interruption during the period from 1974
rendered judgment, reversing the Private respondents appealed to the up to 1982, the period of prescription,
appealed decision in Civil Case No. Court of Appeals which rendered a as correctly maintained by the
293. On April 29, 1981, judgment was decision on March 27, 1991, disposing: appellants, was tolled during such
period, due to the injunctive writ in Civil
Case No. 293 as discussed earlier 1191, Civil Code; Seva vs. Berwin, 48 computing the prescriptive period for
when the vendors could not maintain Phil. 581 [1926]; Paras, Civil Code of the reason that, as above discussed,
the vendee in possession, and the Philippines, 12th ed. Vol. IV, p. from 1974 to 1982, private respondent
consequently was in no position to 200). In a contract of sale, the vendor is Echaus was not in a legal position to
legally demand payment of the price. bound to transfer the ownership of and initiate action against petitioner since
Accordingly, while it may be conceded deliver, as well as warrant, the thing as aforestated, through no fault of hers,
that appellants' cause of action to which is the object of the sale (Art. her warranty against eviction was
demand performance had accrued on 1495, Civil Code); he warrants that the breached. In the case of Daniel vs.
June 10, 1967 due to the appellee buyer shall, from the time ownership is Garlitos, (95 Phil. 387 [1954]), it was
institution's default in the payment of passed, have and enjoy the legal and held that a court order deferring action
the first installment which became due peaceful possession of the thing — on the execution of judgment
on that date, the running of prescription suspended the running of the 5-year
was interrupted in 1974 when, from the ARTICLE 1547. In a contract of sale, period for execution of a judgment.
words of the lower court itself, "the unless a contrary intention appears, Here the execution of the judgment in
Supreme Court reversed the Court of there is: Civil Case No. 7435 was stopped by
Appeal's decision and dissolved the the writ of preliminary injunction issued
injunction which the latter court had in Civil Case No. 293. It was only when
(1) An implied warranty on the part of
earlier issued in Civil Case No. 293, Civil Case No. 293 was dismissed that
the seller that he has a right to sell the
possession of the building and other the writ of execution in Civil Case Na.
thing at the time when the ownership is
properties was taken from defendant to pass, and that the buyer shall from 7435 could be implemented and
Binalbagan Tech. Inc. and given to the that time have and enjoy the legal and petitioner Binalbagan restored to the
de la Cruz spouses, through Southern possession of the subject lots.
peaceful possession of the thing.
Negros College". And the period of
prescription commenced to run anew Deducting eight years (1974 to 1982)
only on May 31, 1982 when the As afore-stated, petitioner was evicted
from the subject subdivision lots in from the period 1967 to 1982, only
appellants were finally able to fully seven years elapsed. Consequently,
implement the already executory 1974 by virtue of a court order in Civil
Civil Case No. 1354 was filed within the
judgment in Case No. 7435, and thus Case No. 293 and reinstated to the
10-year prescriptive period. Working
restore appellees in possession of the possession thereof only in 1982. During
against petitioner's position too is the
42 subdivision lots. the period, therefore, from 1974 to
1982, seller private respondent principle against unjust enrichment
Angelina Echaus' warranty against which would certainly be the result if
In other words, the period of petitioner is allowed to own the 42 lots
eviction given to buyer petitioner was
prescription was interrupted, because without full payment thereof.
breached though, admittedly, through
from 1974 up to 1982, the appellants
no fault of her own. It follows that
themselves could not have restored WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
during that period, 1974 to 1982,
unto the appellees the possession of private respondent Echaus was not in a and the decision of the Court of
the 42 subdivision lots precisely legal position to demand compliance of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 24635 is
because of the preliminary injunction AFFIRMED.
the prestation of petitioner to pay the
mentioned elsewhere. Consequently,
price of said subdivision lots. In short,
the appellants could not have
her right to demand payment was SO ORDERED.
prospered in any suit to compel
suspended during that period, 1974-
performance or payment from the 1982.
appellees-buyers, because the Feliciano, Bidin, Davide, Jr. and
appellants themselves were in no Romero, JJ ., concur.
position to perform their own The prescriptive period within which to
corresponding obligation to deliver to institute an action upon a written Gutierrez, Jr., J ., on terminal leave.
and maintain said buyers in possession contract is ten years (Art. 1144, Civil
of the lots subject matter of the sale. Code). The cause of action of private
(Article 1458, 1495, 1537, Civil Code). respondent Echaus is based on the
(pp 49-50, Rollo) deed of sale aforementioned. The deed
of sale whereby private respondent
Echaus transferred ownership of the
We agree with the Court of Appeals. subdivision lots was executed on May
11, 1967. She filed Civil Case No. 1354
A party to a contract cannot demand for recovery of title and damages only
performance of the other party's on October 8, 1982. From May 11,
obligations unless he is in a position to 1967 to October 8, 1982, more than
comply with his own obligations. fifteen (15) years elapsed. Seemingly,
Similarly, the right to rescind a contract the 10-year prescriptive period had
can be demanded only if a party thereto expired before she brought her action
is ready, willing and able to comply with to recover title. However, the period
his own obligations thereunder (Art. 1974 to 1982 should be deducted in