Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 350 views

    Miailhe V CA GR No. 108991 March 20, 2001 by - Yrreverre

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    (1) The petitioner's action to annul the sale of their properties had prescribed as more than 4 years had passed since the alleged threat and intimidation ceased with the departure of former President Marcos in 1986. (2) The petitioner's extrajudicial demands did not interrupt prescription because there was no existing creditor-debtor relationship between the parties, which is required for extrajudicial demands to interrupt prescription under Article 1155 of the Civil Code. (3) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the petitioner's action had prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Miailhe V CA GR No. 108991 March 20, 2001 by - Yrreverre

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    350 views2 pages
    (1) The petitioner's action to annul the sale of their properties had prescribed as more than 4 years had passed since the alleged threat and intimidation ceased with the departure of former President Marcos in 1986. (2) The petitioner's extrajudicial demands did not interrupt prescription because there was no existing creditor-debtor relationship between the parties, which is required for extrajudicial demands to interrupt prescription under Article 1155 of the Civil Code. (3) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the petitioner's action had prescribed.

    Original Description:

    .

    Original Title

    20. Miailhe v CA Gr No. 108991 March 20, 2001 by- Yrreverre (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) The petitioner's action to annul the sale of their properties had prescribed as more than 4 years had passed since the alleged threat and intimidation ceased with the departure of former President Marcos in 1986. (2) The petitioner's extrajudicial demands did not interrupt prescription because there was no existing creditor-debtor relationship between the parties, which is required for extrajudicial demands to interrupt prescription under Article 1155 of the Civil Code. (3) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the petitioner's action had prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    350 views2 pages

    Miailhe V CA GR No. 108991 March 20, 2001 by - Yrreverre

    Uploaded by

    Brian Duffy
    (1) The petitioner's action to annul the sale of their properties had prescribed as more than 4 years had passed since the alleged threat and intimidation ceased with the departure of former President Marcos in 1986. (2) The petitioner's extrajudicial demands did not interrupt prescription because there was no existing creditor-debtor relationship between the parties, which is required for extrajudicial demands to interrupt prescription under Article 1155 of the Civil Code. (3) The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the petitioner's action had prescribed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    20.

    MIAILHE v CA Reconveyance and Damages against Republic of the Philippines and


    GR NO. 108991 Development Bank of the Philippines.
    MARCH 20, 2001  TC - denied motion to dismissed on the ground of prescription
    By: YRREVERRE  CA - ruled that the petitioners action had prescribed
    Topic: PRESCRIPTION  Thus, this petition.
    Petitioners: WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE
    Respondents: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ISSUE:
    Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J. (1) W/N the petitioner’s action had prescribed – Yes
    (2) W/N the petitioner’s extrajudicial demands did not interrupt prescription
    RECIT-READY/SUMMARY: - Yes

    DOCTRINE: HELD/RATIO:
    1. If the ground for annulment is vitiation of consent by intimidation, the
    four-year period starts from the time such defect ceases. (1)
    2. The running of this prescriptive period cannot be interrupted by an  YES. The records in this case indubitably show the lapse of the prescriptive
    extrajudicial demand made by the party whose consent was vitiated. period, thus warranting the immediate dismissal of the Complaint.
     period for prescription would be that pertaining to an action for the
    FACTS: annulment of contract; that is, four years from the time the defect in the
     Miailhe were the former registered owners of three parcels of land located consent ceases.
    at Manila.  The foregoing clearly shows that the alleged threat and intimidation, which
     The properties had been owned by and in the possession of Miailhe and vitiated petitioners consent, ceased when Marcos left the country on
    their family for over one hundred (100) years until August 1, 1976 February 24, 1986. Since an action for the annulment of contracts must be
     During the height of the martial law regime of the late President Ferdinand filed within four years from the time the cause of vitiation ceases, the suit
    Marcos, Republic of the Philippines, through its armed forces, forcibly and before the trial court should have been filed anytime on or before February
    unlawfully took possession of the aforesaid properties. 24, 1990.
     Republic of the Philippines, through its armed forces, continued its lawful  In this case, petitioner did so only on March 23, 1990. Clearly, his action
    and forcible occupation of the premises from August 1, 1976 to August 19, had prescribed by then.
    1977 without paying rentals, despite plaintiffs demands.
     The Office of the President showed interest in the subject properties and (2)
    directed DBP (Development Bank of the Philippines) to acquire for the  YES. In order for extrajudicial demand to interrupt prescription there
    government the subject properties. must be a creditor-debtor relationship established.
     Through threats and intimidation employed, Miailhe, under duress, were  ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed
    coerced into selling the subject properties to defendant DBP for the grossly before the court, when there is extrajudicial demand by the creditors,
    low price. and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the
     DBP, in turn, sold the subject properties to Republic of the Philippines. debtor.
     After the late President Marcos left the country on February 24, 1986 after  It is clear that for there to be a creditor and a debtor to speak of, an
    the EDSA revolution, Miailhe made repeated extrajudicial demands upon obligation must first exist.
    DBP for return and reconveyance of subject properties to them.  In the present case, there is as yet no obligation in existence.
     Despite demands, DBP unjustifiably failed and refused, and still  In the absence of an existing obligation, petitioner cannot be considered a
    unjustifiably fail and refuse, to return and reconvey the subject properties. creditor, and Article 1155 of the Civil Code cannot be applied to his
     On March 23, 1990, Miailhe filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale, action. Thus, any extrajudicial demand he made did not, or will not,
    interrupt the prescription of his action for the annulment of the Contract
    of Sale.
     Respondents WON. Petition was denied

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of
    Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

    ANNOTATIONS:

    (1) Prescription must yield to the higher interest of justice.


    (2) An action for annulment of a contract entered into by minors or other
    incapacitated persons shall be brought within four years from the time the
    guardianship ceases.
    (3) An action to annul a voidable contract based on fraud should be brought
    within four (4) years from the discovery of the same.

    You might also like