#24 RAMOS v CONDEZ

GR NO. L-22072 ISSUE

AUGUST 30, 1967  WON the plaintiff is barred from filing an action on the ground that the action
By: GUZMAN already prescribed.
Topic: PRESCRIPTION
Plaintiffs: ALFONSO BUN RAMOS, ET AL HELD/RATIO
Defendants: EMILIANO CONDEZ, ET AL  NO. THE SC SET ASIDE AND REVOKED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER
Ponente: ANGELES, J. COURT AND REMANDED TO SUCH.
 The cause of action in the case at bar is for a judicial declaration of plaintiffs'
RECIT-READY: right to the land and recovery of the possession thereof, or for damages.
Plaintiffs' cause of action accrued on June 25, 1952, when the deed of
absolute sale was executed.
DOCTRINE:  The action being based on a written contract, it must be brought within ten
The action being based on a written contract, it must be brought within ten years from years from the time the cause of action accrues (Article 1144, New Civil
the time the cause of action accrues (Article 1144, New Civil Code). The running of the Code).
period of limitation of action was, however, interrupted on November 10, 1956, when  The running of the period of limitation of action was, however, interrupted on
the defendants wrote the plaintiffs acknowledging the validity of the deed of sale and November 10, 1956, when the defendants wrote the plaintiffs acknowledging
promising to comply with their commitment as embodied therein that they would deliver the validity of the deed of sale and promising to comply with their commitment
the land which they had sold to the plaintiffs. Hence, when the present action was filed as embodied therein that they would deliver the land which they had sold to
on May 22, 1963, the cause of action had not yet prescribed. the plaintiffs. Hence, when the present action was filed on May 22, 1963, the
cause of action had not yet prescribed.
FACTS
 The case is an appeal from an order dismissing the case for the reason that
the cause of action has prescribed.
 On May 22, 1963, Plaintiffs, filed an action in the CFI against the Defendants.
 On June 1952, Defendants sold to the plaintiffs a parcel of land.
 In the early part of 1956, the plaintiffs’ decided to cultivate the parcel of land
sold by the defendant.
 However, it was discovered that the land sold by the defendants, belonged to
another person other than the defendants.
 Consequently, plaintiffs were not able to occupy and cultivate the said land.
 Now the plaintiff prayed and ordered the defendants to jointly and severally
deliver to the plaintiffs the two hectares of land.
 The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds:
o That the action has prescribed: Defendants argue that as the deed
of sale was executed on June 25, 1952, and the action was filed on
May 22, 1963, more than ten years had elapsed, thus the action
had prescribed.
o The complaint states no cause of action.
 Plaintiffs contended and admitted that the cause of action had accrued on
Jun 25, 1952, however, in view of the defendants’ written acknowledgement
of the validity of the deed of absolute sale and promise to deliver the land
which they sold to plaintiffs, as expressed in defendants’ letter of November
10, 1956, the running of the prescriptive period for the commencement of the
action was tolled on that date.
o As an action was based upon written contracts prescribes in ten
years, hence, the instant action which was filed on May 12, 1963,
was commenced within the period of statute of limitation.
 LOWER COURT: dismissed the case, the action was already prescribed
based on the ground of fraud.