Khe Hong Cheng vs. CA, 355 SCRA 701 (2001)

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence
SPONSORED SEARCHES
khe hong seng v ca 355 scra 701 2001 settlement claims
law court cases supreme court
March 2001 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2001 > March 2001
Decisions > G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 2001 - KHE HONG CHENG v.
ChanRobles On-Line Bar COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

Page 1 of 20
Review
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 144169. March 28, 2001.]
KHE HONG CHENG, alias FELIX KHE, SANDRA JOY KHE and RAY
STEVEN KHE, Petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. TEOFILO
GUADIZ, RTC 147, MAKATI CITY and PHILAM INSURANCE CO.,
SPONSORED SEARCHES INC., Respondents.
appeals court
DECISION
debt settlement
settlement claims
KAPUNAN, J.:
civil judgement
land contract Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45,
seeking to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 10,
SPONSORED SEARCHES 2000 and its resolution dated July 11, 2000 denying the motion for
filing a lawsuit reconsideration of the aforesaid decision. The original complaint that is
the subject matter of this case is an accion pauliana — an action filed
cheng store by Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (respondent Philam) to rescind or
annul the donations made by petitioner Khe Hong Cheng allegedly in
cheng
fraud of creditors. The main issue for resolution is whether or not the
civil judgement action to rescind the donations has already prescribed. While the first
paragraph of Article 1389 of the Civil Code states: "The action to claim
sample briefs law rescission must be commenced within four years . . ." the question is,
from which point or event does this prescriptive period commence to
run? chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
March-2001 Jurisprudence The facts are as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Petitioner Khe Hong Cheng, alias Felix Khe, is the owner of Butuan
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279
Shipping Lines. It appears that on or about October 4, 1985, the
March 1, 2001 - ALICIA
Philippine Agricultural Trading Corporation shipped on board the vessel
GONZALES-DECANO v.
M/V PRINCE ERIC, owned by petitioner Khe Hong Cheng, 3,400 bags of
ORLANDO ANA F. SIAPNO
copra at Masbate, Masbate, for delivery to Dipolog City, Zamboanga del

Page 2 of 20
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1282 Norte. The said shipment of copra was covered by a marine insurance
March 1, 2001 - SOFRONIO policy issued by American Home Insurance Company (respondent
DAYOT v. RODOLFO B. Philam’s assured). M/V PRINCE ERIC, however, sank somewhere
GARCIA between Negros Island and Northeastern Mindanao, resulting in the
total loss of the shipment. Because of the loss, the insurer, American
G.R. No. 112092 March 1, Home, paid the amount of P354,000.00 (the value of the copra) to the
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE consignee.
PHIL. v. ROBERT NUÑEZ
Having been subrogated into the rights of the consignee, American
G.R. No. 123069 March 1, Home instituted Civil Case No. 13357 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE of Makati, Branch 147 to recover the money paid to the consignee,
PHIL. v. PEDRO SASPA, ET based on breach of contract of carriage. While the case was still
AL. pending, or on December 20, 1989, petitioner Khe Hong Cheng
executed deeds of donations of parcels of land in favor of his children,
G.R. No. 126019 March 1, herein co-petitioners Sandra Joy and Ray Steven. The parcel of land
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE with an area of 1,000 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of
PHIL. v. MARIO CALDONA Title (TCT) No. T-3816 was donated to Ray Steven. Petitioner Khe Hong
Cheng likewise donated in favor of Sandra Joy two (2) parcels of land
G.R. No. 131637 March 1, located in Butuan City, covered by TCT No. RT-12838. On the basis of
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE said deeds, TCT No. T-3816 was cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No.
PHIL. v. RODELIO PERALTA T-5072 was issued in favor of Ray Steven and TCT No. RT-12838 was
cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. RT-21054 was issued in the name
G.R. No. 133888 March 1, of Sandra Joy.
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. ALFREDO NARDO The trial court rendered judgment against petitioner Khe Hong Cheng in
Civil Case No. 13357 on December 29, 1993, four years after the
G.R. No. 134330 March 1, donations were made and the TCTs were registered in the donees’
2001 - ENRIQUE M. BELO, names. The decretal portion of the aforesaid decision reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
ET AL. v. PHIL. NATIONAL

BANK, ET AL. "Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders
judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant, ordering
G.R. Nos. 135667-70 the latter to pay the former: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF

THE PHIL. v. JESSIE
1) the sum of P354,000.00 representing the amount paid by the
VENTURA COLLADO
plaintiff to the Philippine Agricultural Trading Corporation with legal
interest at 12% from the time of the filing of the complaint in this case;
G.R. No. 138666 March 1,
2001 - ISABELO
2) the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
LORENZANA v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHIL.
3) the costs. 1
G.R. No. 140511 March 1,

After the said decision became final and executory, a writ of execution
was forthwith, issued on September 14, 1995. Said writ of execution,
PHIL. v. BALTAZAR AMION
however, was not served. An alias writ of execution was, thereafter,
applied for and granted in October 1996. Despite earnest efforts, the

Page 3 of 20
G.R. No. 142313 March 1, sheriff found no property under the name of Butuan Shipping Lines
2001 - MANUEL CHU, SR., and/or petitioner Khe Hong Cheng to levy or garnish for the satisfaction
ET AL. v. BENELDA ESTATE of the trial court’s decision. When the sheriff, accompanied by counsel
DEV’T. CORP. of respondent Philam, went to Butuan City on January 17, 1997, to
enforce the alias writ of execution, they discovered that petitioner Khe
G.R. No. 142527 March 1, Hong Cheng no longer had any property and that he had conveyed the
2001 - ARSENIO ALVAREZ v. subject properties to his children.
COMELEC, ET AL.
On February 25, 1997, respondent Philam filed a complaint with the
G.R. No. 144678 March 1, Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 147, for the rescission of the
2001 - JAVIER E. ZACATE v. deeds of donation executed by petitioner Khe Hong Cheng in favor of
COMELEC, ET AL. his children and for the nullification of their titles (Civil Case No. 97-
415). Respondent Philam alleged, inter alia, that petitioner Khe Hong
G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & Cheng executed the aforesaid deeds in fraud of his creditors, including
146738 March 2, 2001 - respondent Philam. 2
JOSEPH E. ESTRADA v.
ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL. Petitioners subsequently filed their answer to the complaint a quo. They
moved for its dismissal on the ground that the action had already
G.R. No. 113236 March 5, prescribed. They posited that the registration of the deeds of donation
2001 - FIRESTONE TIRE & on December 27, 1989 constituted constructive notice and since the
RUBBER COMPANY OF THE complaint a quo was filed only on February 25, 1997, or more than four
PHIL. v. COURT OF (4) years after said registration, the action was already barred by
APPEALS, ET AL. prescription. 3
G.R. No. 113265 March 5, Acting thereon, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. It held that
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE respondent Philam’s complaint had not yet prescribed. According to the
PHIL. v. MANUEL PEREZ trial court, the prescriptive period began to run only from December 29,
1993, the date of the decision of the trial court in Civil Case No. 13357.
G.R. No. 118680 March 5, 4
2001 - MARIA ELENA
RODRIGUEZ PEDROSA v. On appeal by petitioners, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision in
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. favor of respondent Philam. The CA declared that the action to rescind
the donations had not yet prescribed. Citing Articles 1381 and 1383 of
G.R. No. 123788 March 5, the Civil Code, the CA basically ruled that the four year period to
2001 - DOMINADOR DE institute the action for rescission began to run only in January 1997,
GUZMAN v. COURT OF and not when the decision in the civil case became final and executory
APPEALS, ET AL. on December 29, 1993. The CA reckoned the accrual of respondent
Philam’s cause of action on January 1997, the time when it first learned
G.R. No. 124686 March 5, that the judgment award could not be satisfied because the judgment
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE creditor, petitioner Khe Hong Cheng, had no more properties in his
PHIL. v. ROQUE ELLADO name. Prior thereto, respondent Philam had not yet exhausted all legal
means for the satisfaction of the decision in its favor, as prescribed
G.R. No. 127158 March 5, under Article 1383 of the Civil Code. 5
PHIL. v. JULIO HERIDA, ET The Court of Appeals thus denied the petition for certiorari filed before

Page 4 of 20
AL. it, and held that the trial court did not commit any error in denying
petitioners’ motion to dismiss. Their motion for reconsideration was
G.R. No. 132353 March 5, likewise dismissed in the appellate court’s resolution dated July 11,
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE 2000.
PHIL. v. ALFREDO IBO
Petitioners now assail the aforesaid decision and resolution of the CA
G.R. No. 126557 March 6, alleging that: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
2001 - RAMON ALBERT v.

CELSO D. GANGAN I
G.R. No. 138646 March 6,

2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ERRED AND ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE
PHIL. v. JOMER CABANSAY OF DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITION TO DISMISS THE
CASE BASED ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
G.R. No. 139518 March 6,

2001 - EVANGELINE L.
II
PUZON v. STA. LUCIA
REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN

G.R. Nos. 140249 &
HOLDING THAT PRESCRIPTION BEGINS TO RUN WHEN IN JANUARY
140363 March 6, 2001 -
1997 THE SHERIFF WENT TO BUTUAN CITY IN SEARCH OF PROPERTIES
DANILO S. YAP v. COURT OF
OF PETITIONER FELIX KHE CHENG TO SATISFY THE JUDGMENT IN
APPEALS, ET AL.
CIVIL CASE NO. 13357 AND FOUND OUT THAT AS EARLY AS DEC. 20,
1989, PETITIONERS KHE CHENG EXECUTED THE DEEDS OF
G.R. No. 140884 March 6,
DONATIONS IN FAVOR OF HIS CO-PETITIONERS THAT THE ACTION FOR
2001 - GELACIO P.
RESCISSION ACCRUED BECAUSE PRESCRIPTION BEGAN TO RUN WHEN
GEMENTIZA v. COMELEC, ET
THESE DONATIONS WERE REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTER OF
AL.
DEEDS IN DECEMBER 1989, AND WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED
ONLY IN FEBRUARY 1997, MORE THAN FOUR YEARS HAVE ALREADY
G.R. No. 143823 March 6,
LAPSED AND THEREFORE, IT HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED. 6
2001 - JENNIFER ABRAHAM
v. NLRC, ET AL.
Essentially, the issue for resolution posed by petitioners is this: When
did the four (4) year prescriptive period as provided for in Article 1389
G.R. No. 126168 March 7,
of the Civil Code for respondent Philam to file its action for rescission of
the subject deeds of donation commence to run?
PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAMUDIO
The petition is without merit.

G.R. No. 129594 March 7,
Article 1389 of the Civil Code simply provides that, "The action to claim
PHIL. v. JUNNIFER
rescission must be commenced within four years." Since this provision
LAURENTE
of law is silent as to when the prescriptive period would commence, the
general rule, i.e, from the moment the cause of action accrues,
G.R. No. 135945 March 7,
therefore, applies. Article 1150 of the Civil Code is particularly
2001 - UNITED RESIDENTS
instructive: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
OF DOMINICAN HILL v.

Page 5 of 20
COMM. ON THE ARTICLE 1150. The time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when
SETTLEMENT OF LAND there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted
PROBLEMS from the day they may be brought.
G.R. No. 136173 March 7, Indeed, this Court enunciated the principle that it is the legal possibility
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE of bringing the action which determines the starting point for the
PHIL. v. ERNESTO ICALLA computation of the prescriptive period for the action. 7 Article 1383 of
the Civil Code provides as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
G.R. Nos. 137481-83 &

138455 March 7, 2001 - ARTICLE 1383. An action for rescission is subsidiary; it cannot be
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. instituted except when the party suffering damage has no other legal
CONRADO SALADINO means to obtain reparation for the same.
G.R. Nos. 139962-66 It is thus apparent that an action to rescind or an accion pauliana must
March 7, 2001 - PEOPLE OF be of last resort, availed of only after all other legal remedies have been
THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO exhausted and have been proven futile. For an accion pauliana to
MANGOMPIT accrue, the following requisites must concur: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297

1) That the plaintiff asking for rescission, has a credit prior to the
March 7, 2001 - JOSEFINA
alienation, although demandable later; 2) That the debtor has made a
BANGCO v. RODOLFO S.
subsequent contract conveying a patrimonial benefit to a third person;
GATDULA
3) That the creditor has no other legal remedy to satisfy his claim, but
would benefit by rescission of the conveyance to the third person; 4)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329
That the act being impugned is fraudulent; 5) That the third person who
March 8, 2001 - HERMINIA
received the property conveyed, if by onerous title, has been an
BORJA-MANZANO v. ROQUE
accomplice in the fraud. 8 (Emphasis ours)
R SANCHEZ
We quote with approval the following disquisition of the CA on the

G.R. No. 122611 March 8,
matter: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
2001 - NAPOLEON H.
GONZALES v. COURT OF
An accion pauliana accrues only when the creditor discovers that he has
APPEALS, ET AL.
no other legal remedy for the satisfaction of his claim against the debtor
other than an accion pauliana. The accion pauliana is an action of a last
G.R. No. 125901 March 8,
resort. For as long as the creditor still has a remedy at law for the
2001 - EDGARDO A. TIJING,
enforcement of his claim against the debtor, the creditor will not have
ET AL. v. COURT OF
any cause of action against the creditor for rescission of the contracts
APPEALS, ET AL.
entered into by and between the debtor and another person or persons.
Indeed, an accion pauliana presupposes a judgment and the issuance
G.R. No. 130378 March 8,
by the trial court of a writ of execution for the satisfaction of the
judgment and the failure of the Sheriff to enforce and satisfy the
PHIL. v. ARNEL MATARO, ET
judgment of the court. It presupposes that the creditor has exhausted
AL.
the property of the debtor. The date of the decision of the trial court
against the debtor is immaterial. What is important is that the credit of
G.R. No. 134279 March 8,
the plaintiff antedates that of the fraudulent alienation by the debtor of
his property. After all, the decision of the trial court against the debtor

Page 6 of 20
PHIL. v. RICKY ROGER will retroact to the time when the debtor became indebted to the
AUSTRIA creditor. 9
G.R. Nos. 135234-38 Petitioners, however, maintain that the cause of action of respondent
March 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF Philam against them for the rescission of the deeds of donation accrued
THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO as early as December 27, 1989, when petitioner Khe Hong Cheng
GUNTANG registered the subject conveyances with the Register of Deeds.
Respondent Philam allegedly had constructive knowledge of the
G.R. No. 137649 March 8, execution of said deeds under Section 52 of Presidential Decree No.
2001 - PEOPLE OF THE 1529, quoted infra, as follows: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
PHIL. v. RODOLFO
VILLADARES SECTION 52. Constructive knowledge upon registration. — Every
conveyance, mortgage, lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment,
G.R. No. 138137 March 8, instrument or entry affecting registered land shall, if registered, filed or
2001 - PERLA S. ZULUETA v. entered in the Office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city
ASIA BREWERY where the land to which it relates lies, be constructive notice to all
persons from the time of such registering, filing, or entering. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
G.R. No. 138774 March 8,

2001 - REGINA FRANCISCO,
Petitioners argument that the Civil Code must yield to the Mortgage and
ET AL v. AIDA FRANCISCO-
Registration Laws is misplaced, for in no way does this imply that the
ALFONSO
specific provisions of the former may be all together ignored. To count
the four year prescriptive period to rescind an allegedly fraudulent
G.R. No. 140479 March 8,
contract from the date of registration of the conveyance with the
2001 - ROSENCOR
Register of Deeds, as alleged by the petitioners, would run counter to
DEVELOPMENT
Article 1383 of the Civil Code as well as settled jurisprudence. It would
CORPORATION, ET AL. v.
likewise violate the third requisite to file an action for rescission of an
PATERNO INQUING, ET AL.
allegedly fraudulent conveyance of property, i.e., the creditor has no
other legal remedy to satisfy his claim.
G.R. No. 140713 March 8,
2001 - ROSA YAP PARAS, ET
An accion pauliana thus presupposes the following: 1) A judgment; 2)
AL. v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO
the issuance by the trial court of a writ of execution for the satisfaction
of the judgment, and 3) the failure of the sheriff to enforce and satisfy
G.R. No. 112115 March 9,
the judgment of the court. It requires that the creditor has exhausted
2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE
the property of the debtor. The date of the decision of the trial court is
PHIL. v. COURT OF
immaterial. What is important is that the credit of the plaintiff antedates
APPEALS, ET AL.
that of the fraudulent alienation by the debtor of his property. After all,
the decision of the trial court against the debtor will retroact to the time
G.R. Nos. 140619-24
when the debtor became indebted to the creditor.
March 9, 2001 - BENEDICTO
E. KUIZON, ET AL. v.
Tolentino, a noted civilist, explained: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
ANIANO A. DESIERTO
". . . [T]herefore, credits with suspensive term or condition are

G.R. No. 126099 March
excluded, because the accion pauliana presupposes a judgment and
12, 2001 - ROBERTO MITO
unsatisfied execution, which cannot exist when the debt is not yet
v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET
demandable at the time the rescissory action is brought. Rescission is a

Page 7 of 20
AL. subsidiary action, which presupposes that the creditor has exhausted
the property of the debtor which is impossible in credits which cannot
G.R. No. 128372 March be enforced because of a suspensive term or condition.
12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHIL. v. REMEGIO DELA While it is necessary that the credit of the plaintiff in the accion pauliana
PEÑA must be prior to the fraudulent alienation, the date of the judgment
enforcing it is immaterial. Even if the judgment be subsequent to the
G.R. Nos. 130634-35 alienation, it is merely declaratory with retroactive effect to the date
March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE when the credit was constituted." 10
OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO
OYANIB These principles were reiterated by the Court when it explained the
requisites of an accion pauliana in greater detail, to wit: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

12, 2001 - VIRGINIA O. "The following successive measures must be taken by a creditor before
GOCHAN, ET AL. v. he may bring an action for rescission of an allegedly fraudulent sale: (1)
RICHARD G. YOUNG, ET AL. exhaust the properties of the debtor through levying by attachment and
execution upon all the property of the debtor, except such as are
G.R. No. 136738 March exempt from execution; (2) exercise all the rights and actions of the
12, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE debtor, save those personal to him (accion subrogatoria); and (3) seek
PHIL. v. EFREN VALEZ rescission of the contracts executed by the debtor in fraud of their
rights (accion pauliana). Without availing of the first and second
G.R. No. 137306 March remedies, i.e., exhausting the properties of the debtor or subrogating
12, 2001 - VIRGINIA themselves in Francisco Bareg’s transmissible rights and actions.
AVISADO, ET AL. v. AMOR petitioners simply undertook the third measure and filed an action for
RUMBAUA, ET AL. annulment of sale. This cannot be done." 11 (Emphasis ours)
G.R. Nos. 140011-16 In the same case, the Court also quoted the rationale of the CA when it
March 12, 2001 - PEOPLE upheld the dismissal of the accion pauliana on the basis of lack of cause
OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO of action: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
MORATA
"In this case, plaintiff’s appellants had not even commenced an action
A.M. No. P-01-1464 March
against defendants-appellees Bareng for the collection of the alleged
13, 2001 - SALVADOR O.
indebtedness. Plaintiffs-appellants had not even tried to exhaust the
BOOC v. MALAYO B.
property of defendants-appellees Bareng. Plaintiffs-appellants, in
BANTUAS
seeking the rescission of the contracts of sale entered into between
defendants-appellees, failed to show and prove that defendants-
appellees Bareng had no other property, either at the time of the sale or
13, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF
at the time this action was filed, out of which they could have collected
THE PHIL. v. COURT OF
this (sic) debts." (Emphasis ours)
APPEALS, ET AL.
Even if respondent Philam was aware, as of December 27, 1989, that

petitioner Khe Hong Cheng had executed the deeds of donation in favor
13, 2001 - Y REALTY CORP.
of his children, the complaint against Butuan Shipping Lines and/or
v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.
petitioner Khe Hong Cheng was still pending before the trial court.
Respondent Philam had no inkling, at the time, that the trial court’s

Page 8 of 20
G.R. No. 136594 March judgment would be in its favor and further, that such judgment would
13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE not be satisfied due to the deeds of donation executed by petitioner Khe
PHIL. v. JOEL CANIEZO Hong Cheng during the pendency of the case. Had respondent Philam
filed his complaint on December 27, 1989, such complaint would have
G.R. No. 139405 March been dismissed for being premature. Not only were all other legal
13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE remedies for the enforcement of respondent Philam’s claims not yet
PHIL. v. ARTURO F. exhausted at the time the deeds of donation were executed and
PACIFICADOR registered. Respondent Philam would also not have been able to prove
then that petitioner Khe Hong Cheng had no more property other than
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530 those covered by the subject deeds to satisfy a favorable judgment by
March 14, 2001 - EDGARDO the trial court.
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
ALDAY, ET AL. v.
ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ It bears stressing that petitioner Khe Hong Cheng even expressly
declared and represented that he had reserved to himself property
G.R. Nos. 116001 & sufficient to answer for his debts contracted prior to this date: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
123943 March 14, 2001 -

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
"That the DONOR further states, for the same purpose as expressed in
LUISITO GO
the next preceding paragraph, that this donation is not made with the
object of defrauding his creditors having reserved to himself property
sufficient to answer his debts contracted prior to this date." 12
PHIL. v. LARRY LAVAPIE, ET
As mentioned earlier, respondent Philam only learned about the
AL.
unlawful conveyances made by petitioner Khe Hong Cheng in January
1997 when its counsel accompanied the sheriff to Butuan City to attach
G.R. Nos. 130515 &
the properties of petitioner Khe Hong Cheng. There they found that he
147090 March 14, 2001 -
no longer had any properties in his name. It was only then that
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v.
respondent Philam’s action for rescission of the deeds of donation
ANSELMO BARING
accrued because then it could be said that respondent Philam had
exhausted all legal means to satisfy the trial court’s judgment in its
G.R. Nos. 134451-52
favor. Since respondent Philam filed its complaint for accion pauliana
March 14, 2001 - PEOPLE
against petitioners on February 25, 1997, barely a month from its
OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO
discovery that petitioner Khe Hong Cheng had no other property to
FRETA
satisfy the judgment award against him, its action for rescission of the
subject deeds clearly had not yet prescribed.
A final point. Petitioners now belatedly raise on appeal the defense of
PHIL. v. HERNANDO DE
improper venue claiming that respondent Philam’s complaint is a real
MESA, ET AL.
action and should have been filed with the RTC of Butuan City since the
property subject matter of the donations are located therein. Suffice it
to say that petitioners are already deemed to have waived their right to
question the venue of the instant case. Improper venue should be
PHIL. v. MARIETTA
objected to as follows 1) in a motion to dismiss filed within the time but
PATUNGAN, ET AL.
before the filing of the answer; 13 or 2) in the answer as an affirmative
defense over which, in the discretion of the court, a preliminary hearing
may be held as if a motion to dismiss had been filed. 14 Having failed to

Page 9 of 20
14, 2001 - AMIGO either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of improper of venue or
MANUFACTURING v. CLUETT include the same as an affirmative defense in their answer, petitioners
PEABODY CO. are deemed to have their right to object to improper venue.
G.R. No. 102985 March WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED for
15, 2001 - RUBEN BRAGA lack of merit.
CURAZA v. NLRC, ET AL.
SO ORDERED.
15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE Davide, Jr., C.J., Pardo and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
PHIL. v. FLORANTE
AGUILUZ Puno, J., on official leave.
G.R. Nos. 135201-02

Endnotes:
OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO
FRANCISCO
1. Rollo, p. 106-107.

2. Id., at 50-55.
15, 2001 - CITY OF QUEZON
v. LEXBER INCORPORATED
3. Id., at 57-60.

4. Id., at 70-71.
16, 2001 -
MANUFACTURERS BUILDING
5. Id., at 44-47.
AL.
6. Id., at 16.

7. Constancia C. Tolentino v. CA, Et Al., 162 SCRA 66, 72.
PHIL. v. RODOLFO M.
8. Siguan v. Lim, 318 SCRA 725, 735, quoting TOLENTINO,
HILARIO
ARTHUR M., CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 576 (1991);
citing 8 Manresa 756, 2 Castan 543-555, and 3 Camus 207.
16, 2001 - ELEUTERIA B.
9. See Note 1, at 44-45.
ALIABO, ET AL. v. ROGELIO
L. CARAMPATAN, ET AL.
10. Tolentino, New Civil Code, Volume IV, 1973, ed., at p.
543.
11 Adorable v. CA, 319 SCRA 201, 207 (1999).
PHIL. v. NELLIE CABAIS
12 Annex "K" .
16, 2001 - EPG
13. Section 1, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Court.
CONSTRUCTION CO., ET AL.

Page 10 of 20
v. GREGORIO R. VIGILAR 14. Section 6, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Court.

PHIL. v. RICARDO
CACHOLA, ET AL. Back to Home | Back to Main

PHIL. v. ALFREDO ALIPAR
G.R. Nos. 137753-56

OF THE PHIL v. NILO
ARDON
A.M. No. 01-1463 March

20, 2001 - EVELYN ACUÑA
v. RODOLFO A. ALCANTARA
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306

March 20, 2001 - ROBERT
M. VISBAL v. RODOLFO C.
RAMOS

20, 2001 - DINNA CASTILLO
v. ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO
G.R. Nos. 105965-70

March 20, 2001 - GEORGE
UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET
AL

20, 2001 - WILLIAM ALAIN
MIAILHE v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

PHIL v. ANGELES STA.
TERESA
G.R. Nos. 136862-63

Page 11 of 20
OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO
SANTOS
G.R. Nos. 139413-15

OF THE PHIL. v. ENDRICO
GALAS

20, 2001 - DOLORES
FAJARDO v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

PHIL. v. BUTCH BUCAO LEE

20, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF
THE PHIL. v.
SANDIGANBAYAN

20, 2001 - MEDINA
INVESTIGATION &
SECURITY CORP., ET AL. v.
COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

22, 2001 - ROBERTO P.
ALMARIO v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 133815-17

OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO
LIAD, ET AL.

22, 2001 - ERNESTO
CATUNGAL, ET AL. v. DORIS
HAO

Page 12 of 20
26, 2001 - ROEL O. PARAS
v. MYRNA F. LOFRANCO
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624

March 26, 2001 - REQUEST
FOR ASSISTANCE RELATIVE
TO SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
NO. 28
A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ

March 26, 2001 - HILARIO
DE GUZMAN v. DEODORO J.
SISON
G.R. Nos. 102407-08

OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO
LUCERO

26, 2001 - FLEISCHER
COMPANY v. NLRC, ET AL.

PHIL. v. WALTER
MELENCION

26, 2001 - JEFFREY LIANG
v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

26, 2001 - MAGELLAN
CAPITAL MNGT. CORP., ET
AL. v. ROLANDO M. ZOSA,
ET AL.
G.R. Nos. 131638-39

OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO
MEDENILLA

26, 2001 - ROBERTO

Page 13 of 20
GONZALES v. NLRC, ET AL

PHIL. v. ERNESTO MONTEJO

26, 2001 - UNICRAFT
INDUSTRIES
INTERNATIONAL CORP., ET
AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS,
ET AL.

PHIL. v. MANUEL GALVEZ

PHIL. v. EUTIQUIA CARMEN,
ET AL.

26, 2001 - FLORENCE
MALCAMPO-SIN v. PHILIPP
T. SIN

26, 2001 - ROBERTO B. TAN
v. PHIL. BANKING CORP., ET
AL.

PHIL. v. ROMEO DELOS
SANTOS

26, 2001 - EQUITABLE PCI
BANK v. ROSITA KU
G.R. Nos. 147066 &

147179 March 26, 2001 -
AKBAYAN - Youth, ET AL. v.
COMELEC, ET AL.

Page 14 of 20
A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA
March 27, 2001 - IN RE:
DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA

27, 2001 - GLORIA O.
BENITEZ v. MEDEL P.
ACOSTA

PHIL. v. CORNELIO CABUG

PHIL. v. GLENN DE LOS
SANTOS
G.R. Nos. 137762-65

OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO
BARES

PHIL. v. SONNY MATIONG,
ET AL.
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1357

March 28, 2001 - MONFORT
HERMANOS AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT CORP. v.
ROLANDO V. RAMIREZ
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1574

March 28, 2001 -
GORGONIO S. NOVA v.
SANCHO DAMES II

28, 2001 - PRODUCERS
BANK OF THE PHIL. v.
NLRC, ET AL.

Page 15 of 20
28, 2001 - JOSE ANGELES
AL

28, 2001 - ANASTACIO
VICTORIO v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

28, 2001 - VICENTE R.
MADARANG v.
SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

28, 2001 - PLACIDO O.
URBANES, JR. v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

28, 2001 - ALJEM’S
CORPORATION v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

28, 2001 - SAFIC ALCAN &
CIE v. IMPERIAL VEGETABLE
OIL CO.

PHIL. v. SERVANDO
SATURNO, ET AL.

28, 2001 - UNIVERSITY OF
THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDINA
ROSARIO

PHIL. v. CARLOS L.
ALCANTARA

Page 16 of 20
28, 2001 - CHIANG YIA MIN
AL.

PHIL. v. FORTUNATO
BALANO
G.R. Nos. 139571-72

March 28, 2001 - ROGER N.
ABARDO v.
SANDIGANBAYAN

28, 2001 - ANTONIO
DOCENA, ET AL. v.
RICARDO P. LAPESURA, ET
AL.

28, 2001 - PURTO J.
NAVARRO, ET AL. v. COURT
OF APPEALS, ET AL.

28, 2001 - MANUEL C. FELIX
v. ENERTECH SYSTEMS
INDUSTRIES, ET AL.

28, 2001 - PEDRO ONG, ET
AL. v. SOCORRO PAREL, ET
AL.

28, 2001 - KHE HONG
CHENG v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL.

PHIL. v. MELITA SINCO, ET
AL.

Page 17 of 20
PHIL. v. DOMINADOR
DOMENDED

PHIL. v. IRENEO PADILLA

30, 2001 - DENNIS T.
GABIONZA v. COURT OF
APPEALS, ET AL
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

Page 18 of 20
Page 19 of 20
Page 20 of 20

Khe Hong Cheng vs. CA, 355 SCRA 701 (2001)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Khe Hong Cheng vs. CA, 355 SCRA 701 (2001)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

khe hong seng v ca 355 scra 701 2001 settlement claims

law court cases supreme court

March 2001 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

[G.R. No. 144169. March 28, 2001.]

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

ET AL. v. PHIL. NATIONAL

March 1, 2001 - PEOPLE OF

G.R. No. 140511 March 1,

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

2001 - RAMON ALBERT v.

G.R. No. 138646 March 6,

G.R. No. 139518 March 6,

PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN

The petition is without merit.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

G.R. Nos. 137481-83 &

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297

We quote with approval the following disquisition of the CA on the

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

G.R. No. 138774 March 8,

". . . [T]herefore, credits with suspensive term or condition are

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

G.R. No. 131889 March

Even if respondent Philam was aware, as of December 27, 1989, that

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

123943 March 14, 2001 -

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

G.R. Nos. 135201-02

G.R. No. 141616 March

G.R. No. 116847 March

G.R. No. 128083 March

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

G.R. No. 135047 March

G.R. No. 137282 March

G.R. Nos. 137753-56

A.M. No. 01-1463 March

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306

A.M. No. P-97-1241 March

G.R. Nos. 105965-70

G.R. No. 108991 March

G.R. No. 130663 March

G.R. Nos. 136862-63

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

G.R. Nos. 139413-15

G.R. No. 140356 March

G.R. No. 140919 March

G.R. No. 142476 March

G.R. No. 144074 March

G.R. No. 127772 March

G.R. Nos. 133815-17

G.R. No. 134972 March

A.M. No. P-01-1469 March

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001marchdecisions.php?id=380 1/16/20, 4:20 AM

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1624

A.M. No. 99-731-RTJ

G.R. Nos. 102407-08

G.R. No. 121608 March

G.R. No. 121902 March

G.R. No. 125865 March