G.R. No. L-8012; August 30, 1956
MARIA BARBOSA, deceased, substituted by her heirs ELENA MANIAGO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. FRANCISCO S. MALLARI, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The property in litigation is a homestead land originally patented in the name of Claudio Maniago, husband of Maria Barbosa, and later transferred to her. On November 2, 1937, Maria Barbosa executed a deed of sale for the homestead in favor of Asuncion Agustin (wife of Francisco S. Mallari) for P2,000. The consideration was paid as follows: P1,050 in cash, P665.23 paid to the Philippine National Bank to settle Barbosa’s mortgage debt, and a promissory note for P285. As part of the agreement for the P285 balance, Francisco S. Mallari undertook to help Barbosa purchase a 20-hectare parcel of land in Isabela. Barbosa did not ultimately purchase that land. On March 15, 1939, Mallari paid Barbosa the balance of P209.26 in the office of the Provincial Fiscal, and an acknowledgment of full payment was made. On April 22, 1941, Maria Barbosa filed an action to annul the deed of sale due to alleged fraud and failure of consideration, or alternatively, to rescind it due to Mallari’s failure to help her acquire the Isabela land. After the trial court dismissed her complaint, and following her death, her heirs substituted her and appealed. The appellants, accepting the trial court’s findings of fact, raised only questions of law. An amended complaint was filed on October 7, 1948, which, for the first time, mentioned the land was a homestead and implied a right to repurchase it under the Public Land Act.

ISSUE

Whether the amended complaint, filed on October 7, 1948, which introduced for the first time a cause of action for the repurchase of the homestead under the Public Land Act, relates back to the date of the original complaint (April 22, 1941) for purposes of the five-year prescriptive period for repurchase.

RULING

No. The amended complaint introduced a new and distinct cause of action for the repurchase of the homestead, which was not alleged in the original complaint that solely sought annulment or rescission of the sale. Under the established rule, an amendment that introduces a new cause of action is equivalent to a fresh suit, and the statute of limitations continues to run until the amendment is filed. The five-year period for repurchase under the Public Land Act (Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141) began to run from the date of the sale on November 2, 1937. By the time the amended complaint was filed on October 7, 1948, this prescriptive period had long expired. The amendment did not merely supplement or amplify the facts originally alleged; it set up a new and different claim. Therefore, the action for repurchase was barred by prescription. The decision of the trial court dismissing the complaint was affirmed.