G.R. No. L-8273 October 24, 1955
ATANACIA PERALTA, FRANCISCO PAGADUAN, DIONISIA PAGADUAN, assisted by her husband, MARIANO MIGUEL, MATILDE PAGADUAN, assisted by her husband ADELINO JACINTO, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. FRANCISCO ALIPIO, defendant-appellants.

FACTS

Juan Pagaduan, the registered owner of a homestead (Cadastral Lot No. 3782 of Gattaran, Cagayan, acquired under Homestead Patent No. 49801 and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1110), sold the land to defendant Francisco Alipio on August 1, 1947. After Juan Pagaduan’s death, his widow, Atanacia Peralta, and their children (the plaintiffs) filed an action for reconveyance of the land (Civil Case No. 467-A) on September 17, 1951. This first action was dismissed without prejudice on March 11, 1952. The plaintiffs then filed the present action for reconveyance on November 1, 1952. The defendant contended that the five-year period for repurchase under the Public Land Law had already expired, as more than five years had passed from the date of sale (August 1, 1947) to the filing of the present action (November 1, 1952). The plaintiffs argued that the filing of the first action on September 17, 1951, interrupted the running of the prescriptive period under Article 1155 of the New Civil Code. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering reconveyance upon payment of the repurchase price, holding that the dismissal without prejudice of the first action amounted to judicial permission to file anew within a reasonable time and that the provisions on conventional redemption (pacto de retro) did not apply.

ISSUE

Whether the filing and subsequent dismissal without prejudice of the first action for reconveyance (filed on September 17, 1951) interrupted the running of the five-year prescriptive period for repurchase of a homestead, thereby making the second action (filed on November 1, 1952) timely.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and absolved the defendant from the complaint. The Court held that the applicable statute of limitations was not the New Civil Code (which took effect after the sale) but the Code of Civil Procedure ( Act No. 190 ). Under Act No. 190 , the commencement of an action does not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period if the plaintiff desists from its prosecution or the action is dismissed. The period used up in prosecuting the first action (from September 17, 1951, to its dismissal on March 11, 1952) could not be deducted from the total five-year period. Therefore, the five-year period, which began on August 1, 1947, had fully expired before the second action was filed on November 1, 1952. The Court also rejected the trial court’s view that a dismissal without prejudice constituted judicial permission to extend the statutory period, as the repurchase period fixed by law cannot be extended by judicial action. The Court further held that the provisions on conventional redemption in the Civil Code were inapplicable to the repurchase of a homestead under the Public Land Law, and that the defendant was not entitled to attorney’s fees on his counterclaim.