GR. No.

100594, March 10, 1993

BINALBAGAN TECH, INC., and HERMILO J. NAVA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
MAFDALENA L. PUENTEVELLA, ANGELINA P. ECHAUS, ROMULO L. PUENTEVELLA, RENATO L.
PUETEVELLA, NOLI L. PUENTEVELLA and NELIA LOURDES P. JACINTO, respondents
FACTS
On May 11, 1967, private respondents executed a Contract to Sell and a Deed of Sale of 42
subdivision lots, conveying and transferring said lots to Binalbagan Tech, Inc. In turn,
Binalbagan executed an Acknowledgement of Debt with Mortgage Agreement, mortgaging
said lots in favour of the estate of Puentebella. On June 10, 1967, first instalment became
due but Binalbagan was not able to pay.
There was a pending case involving said lots. Petitioner was evicted from the subject
subdivision lots in 1974 and reinstated to the possession thereof only in 1982. Upon
reinstatement of possession of petitioner, respondent demanded payment through a
demand letter with a statement of account as of September 1982, showing Php367,509.92,
representing the price of the land and accrued interest as of that date. Binalbagan failed to
effect payment, prompting respondent to file case against the former.
Trial court ruled in favour of Binalbagan, saying there is no fraud and that the period within
which to institute action upon a written contract (which is 10 years) has long prescribed.
Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial courts decision; hence the petition for
review on certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether or not the period to institute action upon a written contract has prescribed.
HELD
The prescriptive period within which to institute an action upon a written contract is 10 years
(Art 1144, CC). The cause of action of respondent is based on deed of sale executed in 1967,
whereby ownership of the lots was transferred to Binalbagan. Respondent filed civil case for
recovery of title and damages only in 1982.
Deducting 8 years (1974 to 1982) from the period 1967 to 1982, only 7 years have elapsed.
The case filed by the respondent was within the 10-year prescriptive period.
Working against petitioners position too is the principle against unjust enrichment which
would certainly be the result if petitioner is allowed to own the 42 lots without full payment
thereof.
Petition is denied. Decision of Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Digested by
Nina Khristinne D. Araneta