Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 683 views

    203 James v. Eurem Realty

    Uploaded by

    Mikka Mones
    Trial courts may only dismiss an action on the grounds of prescription when the pleadings definitively show that the case is time-barred. While courts have discretion to dismiss time-barred cases, they may only do so if the parties' submissions unequivocally establish that the deadline has passed without litigation. In this case, the court dismissed the case in response to the defendant's assertion of a prescription defense in its answer, but did so without a trial to evaluate the merits of the claim. As the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendant's title was void from the beginning, their action could not be subject to a statute of limitations.

    Copyright:

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

    203 James v. Eurem Realty

    Uploaded by

    Mikka Mones
    683 views1 page
    Trial courts may only dismiss an action on the grounds of prescription when the pleadings definitively show that the case is time-barred. While courts have discretion to dismiss time-barred cases, they may only do so if the parties' submissions unequivocally establish that the deadline has passed without litigation. In this case, the court dismissed the case in response to the defendant's assertion of a prescription defense in its answer, but did so without a trial to evaluate the merits of the claim. As the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendant's title was void from the beginning, their action could not be subject to a statute of limitations.

    Original Description:

    .

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Trial courts may only dismiss an action on the grounds of prescription when the pleadings definitively show that the case is time-barred. While courts have discretion to dismiss time-barred cases, they may only do so if the parties' submissions unequivocally establish that the deadline has passed without litigation. In this case, the court dismissed the case in response to the defendant's assertion of a prescription defense in its answer, but did so without a trial to evaluate the merits of the claim. As the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendant's title was void from the beginning, their action could not be subject to a statute of limitations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    683 views1 page

    203 James v. Eurem Realty

    Uploaded by

    Mikka Mones
    Trial courts may only dismiss an action on the grounds of prescription when the pleadings definitively show that the case is time-barred. While courts have discretion to dismiss time-barred cases, they may only do so if the parties' submissions unequivocally establish that the deadline has passed without litigation. In this case, the court dismissed the case in response to the defendant's assertion of a prescription defense in its answer, but did so without a trial to evaluate the merits of the claim. As the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendant's title was void from the beginning, their action could not be subject to a statute of limitations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TRIAL COURTS MAY DISMISS AN ACTION ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION ONLY WHEN

    PLEADINGS SHOW IT IS TIME-BARRED


    The affirmative defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of the complaint.
    While trial courts have authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription, it
    may only do so when the parties’ pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred.
    (James v. Eurem Realty Development Corporation, G.R. No. 190650, October 14, 2013)

    x—————x

    TRIAL COURTS MAY DISMISS AN ACTION ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION ONLY WHEN
    PLEADINGS SHOW IT IS TIME-BARRED

    James v. Eurem Realty Development Corporation


    G.R. No. 190650, October 14, 2013
    Reyes, J.

    FACTS:
    This is a petition for review of the CA Decision which dismissed the appeal from the RTC Resolution
    holding that the action for declaration of nullity of title and ownership of real property with damages had
    already prescribed

    On September 17, 2003, the heirs of Gorgonio James filed a Civil Case (Civil Case 5877) against
    Eurem Realty Development Corporation, alleging among others that the title of respondent’s
    predecessor-in-interest, Eufracio Lopez, is void ab initio as it was derived from the void title of Primitivo
    James (Gorgonio’s brother) as declared by a CA decision in CA-G.R. No. 50208-R (Civil Case 1447),
    and that Lopez acted in bad faith in assigning the property to Eurem Realty as he fully knew that he
    had no right or interest over said property. Eurem Realty, on the other hand, argued that prescription
    has already set in, since the petitioners filed the complaint on September 17, 2003 or more than 30
    years after its predecessor-in-interest Lopez bought the property from Primitivo way back in April 25,
    1972.

    ISSUE:
    Is the action filed by petitioners barred by prescription

    HELD:
    No, the period for filing of Civil Case 5877 has not yet prescribed. The Court notes that the RTC’s
    dismissal was triggered by the defenses raised by the respondent in its answer. There was yet to be a
    trial on the merits but the RTC merely relied on the averments in the complaint and answer and
    forthwith dismissed the case. On this point, the Court has already ruled that the “affirmative defense of
    prescription does not automatically warrant the dismissal of a complaint. While trial courts have
    authority and discretion to dismiss an action on the ground of prescription, it may only do so when the
    parties’ pleadings or other facts on record show it to be indeed time-barred. If the issue of prescription
    is one involving evidentiary matters requiring a full-blown trial on the merits, it cannot be determined in
    a motion to dismiss. Civil Case 5877 is one for the declaration of nullity of TCT No. T-10713 in the
    name of the respondent and for the declaration of the petitioners’ absolute ownership over said
    property. As basis for their claim, the petitioner claimed that the respondent’s title over the property is
    void ab initio. An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe.

    You might also like