Solid Homes v. Tan (G.R. No. 145156)

PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014) 2.

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

Whether thepetitionershould paythem merelythe purchase purchase pricewithlegalinterestorthecurrentmarketvaluethereof.

RESOLUTIONSANDARGUMENTS ISSUE1 Whetherornotrespondents’righttobringtheinstantcase againstpetitionerhasalreadyprescribed àNO.Prescriptionbeganto runonlyonDecember18,1995whenspousesTandemandedthatSolid Homesfulfilltheirobligation. Article e 1144, 1144, Civil Civil Code Code provi Major Major Point Point 1: Articl provide des s that that an actio action n for for specificperformanceuponawrittencontractprescribes10yearsfrom thetimetherightofactionaccrues,andsuchactionaccruesonlyupon theconcurrenceofthethreerequisites: ThemaincontentionhereisWHENthe10yearsbegan:April7, 1980(thedatespousesUyboughtthe 1980(thedatespousesUyboughtthelotfromSolidHomes lotfromSolidHomes)or )or February1985(thedatewhenspousesTanboughtthelot). 3Requisitesforacauseofactiontoexist: Arightinfavoroftheplaintiffbywhatevermeansand o underwhateverlawitarisesoriscreated Anobligationonthepartonthedefendanttorespect o suchright An act act or omis omissi sion on on the the part part of such such defe defend ndan ant t o violativeoftherightoftheplaintiff. BancoFilipinoSavingsand BancoFilipinoSavingsandMortgageBank MortgageBankv.CA v.CA àAndacause ofactionariseswhenthatwhichshouldhavebeendoneisnot done,orthatwhichshouldnothavebeendoneisdone. rd Inshort, when the 3 requisi requisitehappen tehappens, s, that’swhen that’swhen o theactionaccrues. SocialSecuritySystemvs.Moon SocialSecuritySystemvs.MoonwalkDevelop walkDevelopmentandHou mentandHousing sing Corporation,et Corporation,et al. à anobligor anobligor violate violates s his obligati obligationto onto the obli ge gee  from the ti me me the  l at atter made a de ma mand for performance,whichdemandalsomarksthepointoftimewhen theformerincursmoraordelay. •

The prescri prescriptiv ptive e period period within within which which the oblige oblige may bringanactionagainsttheobligordoesnotcommence torununtilademandismade. Respond Respondent ents s made made their their written written demand demand upon upon petiti petitioner oner to performwhatisincum performwhatisincumbentupo bentuponitonlyonDece nitonlyonDecember18,1995, mber18,1995, itwasonlyfromthatdatewhen itwasonlyfromthatdatewhenthe10-yearpr the10-yearprescripti escriptiveperiod veperiod underArticle1144commencedtorun.Andsincerespondents’ compl complai aint nt for for speci specifi fic c perf perfor orma mance nce was was filed filed with with the the Field Field OfficeoftheHLURBonlyonApril1,1996,orlessthanfour(4) monthsafterthedateoftheirdemand monthsafterthedateoftheirdemand,petitioner ,petitioner’srelianceon ’srelianceon prescriptionofactionissimplywithoutanylegtostandon. o

•

ISSU ISSUE E 2 Whet Whethe her r the the peti petiti tion oner er shou should ld pay pay them them mere merely ly the the purchasepricewithlegalinterestorthecurrentmarketvaluethereof. Petitionershouldpaythemarketvalueofthelot,NOTthepurchase valueofthelot,NOTthepurchase àPetitionershouldpaythemarket price,inlightofincreaseinitsvaluethroughtheyears.

•

•

•

MajorPoint1: MajorPoint1: TheCourtrefuse TheCourtrefuseda da literal literal applica applicatio tionof nof Article1385, Civil Civil Code which which provide provides s that that “Rescis “Rescission sion creates creates the obligat obligation ion to returnthethingswhichweretheobjectofthecontract,togetherwith their their fruits fruits, , and the price price with its interes interests; ts; consequ consequent ently, ly, it can be carriedoutonlywhenhewhodemandsrescissio carriedoutonlywhenhewhodemandsrescissioncanreturnwhatev ncanreturnwhatever er hemaybeobligedtorestore.” Werewetofollowthelet WerewetofollowtheletterofAr terofArticle1385,wewill ticle1385,wewillineffectb ineffectbe e pavin paving g the the way to an absu absurd rd situa situati tion on where whereby by subdiv subdivisi ision on develop developers ers who have renege reneged d on their their contrac contractua tual l and legal legal obligationtoprovideutilit obligationtoprovideutilitysystemsandfaciliti ysystemsandfacilitiesfortheuseof esfortheuseof subdivis subdivision ion lot owners owners may themse themselves lves profitfrom profitfrom their their very very ownwrongsandshortcomings. It is defi definit nite e that that the the value value of the the subj subject ect prop proper erty ty alre alread ady y escalatedafteralmosttwodecadesfromthetimespouseTan paid paid for for it. it. Equit Equity y and and just justice ice dicta dictate te that that the the inju injure red d part party y shou should ld be paid paid the the mark market et valu value e of the the lot, lot, othe otherw rwis ise, e, respondentsSolidHomes, respondentsSolidHomes, Inc.wouldenrich themselvesat themselvesat the •

•

RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ

PROPERTY DIGESTS (2013 – 2014)

ATTY. VIVENCIO ABANO

expenseofhereinlotownerswhentheysellthesamelotatthe presentmarketvalue. FINALVERDICT:TheCourtaffirmedth TheCourtaffirmedtheCA’srulingand eCA’srulingand–intheinterest –intheinterest ofequityandtopreventunjustenrichment–orderedSolidHomesto payspousesTanthemarketvalueofthepro payspousesTanthemarketvalueofthepropertyiftheyfail pertyiftheyfailtoreplace toreplace itwithanother. NOSEPARATEOPINIONS

RACHELLEANNEGUTIERREZ