G.R. .R. No No. 128 12899 991 1
April ril 12, 12, 20 2000 00
YOLANDA YOLANDA ROSELLO-BENTIR, ROSELLO-BENTIR, SAMUEL SAMUEL PORMIDA PORMIDA and CHARITO CHARITO PORMIDA PORMIDA,
petitioners vs. HONORABLE MATEO M. LEANDA , in his capacity as Presiding Judge o R!", !aclo#an !aclo#an "ity, $ranch $ranch 8, and LEYTE GULF TRADERS, INC. , respondents DOCTRINE % Reor&ation o an instru&ent is that re&edy in e'uity #y &eans o
(hich a (ritten instru&ent is &ade or construed so as to e)press or conor& to the real intention o the parties (hen so&e error or &ista*e has #een co&&itted. +o(ever, an action or reor&ation &ust #e #rought (ithin the period prescri#ed #y la(, other(ise, it (ill #e #arred #y the &ere lapse o ti&e. FACTS% eyte Gul entered into a contract o lease o a parcel o land (ith petitioner
$entir or a period o 20 years starting -ay , 19/8. !he lease (as e)tended or another years until -ay 1, 19923. 4n -ay , 1989, petitioner $entir sold the leased pre&ises to petitioner spouses 5a&uel Por&ada and "harito Por&ada. eyte Gul 'uestioned the sale alleging that it had a right o 6rst reusal. eyte Gul 6led a case see*ing the reor&ation o the e)pired contract o lease on the ground that its la(yer inadvertently o&itted to incorporate in the contract o lease, the ver#al agree&ent that in the event petitioner $entir leases or sells the lot ater the e)piration o the lease, eyte Gul has the right to e'ual the highest o7er. :N5% $entir denies that she #ound hersel to give eyte Gul the right o 6rst reusal in case she sells the property. $ut assu&ing or the sa*e o argu&ent that such right o 6rst reusal (as &ade, it is no( contended that eyte Gul;s cause o action to reor& the contract has already prescri#ed ater 10 years, counted ro& -ay , 1988 (hen the contract o lease incepted. !"% !"% ruled in avor avor o $entir #ecause #ecause action has has already already prescri#ed prescri#ed "A% Action has not prescri#ed < the 10
not it is entitled to the re&edy o reor&ation sought HELD% Ground o action has already prescri#ed, hence, eyte Gul is no longer
entitled to reor&ation o contract. 1. A suit or or reor&ation reor&ation o o an instru&ent instru&ent &ay #e #arred #arred #y lapse o ti&e. !he !he prescriptive period or actions #ased upon a (ritten contract and or reor&ation reor&ation o an instru&ent is ten 103 years under Article 11 o the "ivil "ode. =n the case at #ar, respondent corporation had 10 years ro& 19/8, the
ti&e (hen the contract o lease (as e)ecuted, to 6le an action or reor&ation. 5adly, it did so only on -ay 1, 1992 or t(enty<our 23 years ater the cause o action accrued, hence, its cause o action has #eco&e stale, hence, ti&e<#arred. 2. ven i the supposed 0, ?the other ter&s o the original contract? conte&plated in said provision are only those ter&s (hich are ger&ane to the lessee;s right o continued en@oy&ent o the property leased. !he prescriptive period o ten 103 years provided or in Art. 11 applies #y operation o la(, not #y the (ill o the parties. !hereore, the right o action or reor&ation accrued ro& the date o e)ecution o the contract o lease in 19/8 not (hen the lease (as e)tended in 19883. ecision o "A is reversed and set aside.
