GR L 8262; (November, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-8262; November 29, 1955
TEODORO OSORIO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TRANQUILINO TAN JONGKO and PE BON UY, defendant-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Teodoro Osorio filed a complaint on November 15, 1952, alleging that on May 2, 1941, defendant-appellee Tranquilino Tan Jongko sold him four parcels of land. While two parcels were delivered, the other two remained in the defendants’ possession. Osorio paid part of the purchase price and offered to pay the balance of P800, but the defendants refused to comply with the contract. The contract stipulated that Tan Jongko had one year from May 2, 1941, to deliver the two parcels, and if he failed, Osorio could either rescind the contract or seek specific performance. Osorio made a written extra-judicial demand for delivery on December 5, 1950. The Court of First Instance of Antique dismissed the complaint on the grounds of no cause of action and prescription. Osorio appealed, arguing that his extra-judicial demand on December 5, 1950, interrupted the prescriptive period under the New Civil Code.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiff-appellant’s action to enforce the contract had prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action had prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal based on prescription. The cause of action accrued on May 2, 1942 (one year after the contract execution). Under Act No. 190 (the old Code of Civil Procedure), actions to enforce written contracts prescribed after ten years. The complaint was filed on November 15, 1952, more than ten years after accrual. The appellant’s extra-judicial demand on December 5, 1950, did not interrupt the prescriptive period because Article 1116 of the New Civil Code provides that prescriptions already running before its effectivity (August 30, 1950) are governed by prior laws, under which extra-judicial demands did not interrupt prescription. Articles 2253 and 2258 of the New Civil Code, invoked by the appellant, are inapplicable; Article 2258 applies only when the applicable law is not specified elsewhere, and Article 1116 specifically governs this situation. Article 2253 refers to acts or events occurring before the New Civil Code, whereas the extra-judicial demand occurred in December 1950, after its effectivity. Therefore, the prescriptive period was not interrupted, and the action was barred.