Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 98 views

    24 Ramos V Condez

    Uploaded by

    Julius Manalo
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the case. While the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued in 1952 when the land sale contract was executed, the 10-year prescriptive period was interrupted in 1956 when the defendants acknowledged the validity of the contract and promised to deliver the land. As such, the plaintiffs' filing of the case in 1963 was still within the 10-year period and was not prescribed. The case was remanded to the lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    24 Ramos V Condez

    Uploaded by

    Julius Manalo
    98 views1 page
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the case. While the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued in 1952 when the land sale contract was executed, the 10-year prescriptive period was interrupted in 1956 when the defendants acknowledged the validity of the contract and promised to deliver the land. As such, the plaintiffs' filing of the case in 1963 was still within the 10-year period and was not prescribed. The case was remanded to the lower court.

    Original Description:

    1

    Original Title

    24 Ramos v Condez

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the case. While the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued in 1952 when the land sale contract was executed, the 10-year prescriptive period was interrupted in 1956 when the defendants acknowledged the validity of the contract and promised to deliver the land. As such, the plaintiffs' filing of the case in 1963 was still within the 10-year period and was not prescribed. The case was remanded to the lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    98 views1 page

    24 Ramos V Condez

    Uploaded by

    Julius Manalo
    The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the case. While the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued in 1952 when the land sale contract was executed, the 10-year prescriptive period was interrupted in 1956 when the defendants acknowledged the validity of the contract and promised to deliver the land. As such, the plaintiffs' filing of the case in 1963 was still within the 10-year period and was not prescribed. The case was remanded to the lower court.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    #24 RAMOS v CONDEZ

    GR NO. L-22072 ISSUE


    AUGUST 30, 1967  WON the plaintiff is barred from filing an action on the ground that the action
    By: GUZMAN already prescribed.
    Topic: PRESCRIPTION
    Plaintiffs: ALFONSO BUN RAMOS, ET AL HELD/RATIO
    Defendants: EMILIANO CONDEZ, ET AL  NO. THE SC SET ASIDE AND REVOKED THE DECISION OF THE LOWER
    Ponente: ANGELES, J. COURT AND REMANDED TO SUCH.
     The cause of action in the case at bar is for a judicial declaration of plaintiffs'
    RECIT-READY: right to the land and recovery of the possession thereof, or for damages.
    Plaintiffs' cause of action accrued on June 25, 1952, when the deed of
    absolute sale was executed.
    DOCTRINE:  The action being based on a written contract, it must be brought within ten
    The action being based on a written contract, it must be brought within ten years from years from the time the cause of action accrues (Article 1144, New Civil
    the time the cause of action accrues (Article 1144, New Civil Code). The running of the Code).
    period of limitation of action was, however, interrupted on November 10, 1956, when  The running of the period of limitation of action was, however, interrupted on
    the defendants wrote the plaintiffs acknowledging the validity of the deed of sale and November 10, 1956, when the defendants wrote the plaintiffs acknowledging
    promising to comply with their commitment as embodied therein that they would deliver the validity of the deed of sale and promising to comply with their commitment
    the land which they had sold to the plaintiffs. Hence, when the present action was filed as embodied therein that they would deliver the land which they had sold to
    on May 22, 1963, the cause of action had not yet prescribed. the plaintiffs. Hence, when the present action was filed on May 22, 1963, the
    cause of action had not yet prescribed.
    FACTS
     The case is an appeal from an order dismissing the case for the reason that
    the cause of action has prescribed.
     On May 22, 1963, Plaintiffs, filed an action in the CFI against the Defendants.
     On June 1952, Defendants sold to the plaintiffs a parcel of land.
     In the early part of 1956, the plaintiffs’ decided to cultivate the parcel of land
    sold by the defendant.
     However, it was discovered that the land sold by the defendants, belonged to
    another person other than the defendants.
     Consequently, plaintiffs were not able to occupy and cultivate the said land.
     Now the plaintiff prayed and ordered the defendants to jointly and severally
    deliver to the plaintiffs the two hectares of land.
     The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on two grounds:
    o That the action has prescribed: Defendants argue that as the deed
    of sale was executed on June 25, 1952, and the action was filed on
    May 22, 1963, more than ten years had elapsed, thus the action
    had prescribed.
    o The complaint states no cause of action.
     Plaintiffs contended and admitted that the cause of action had accrued on
    Jun 25, 1952, however, in view of the defendants’ written acknowledgement
    of the validity of the deed of absolute sale and promise to deliver the land
    which they sold to plaintiffs, as expressed in defendants’ letter of November
    10, 1956, the running of the prescriptive period for the commencement of the
    action was tolled on that date.
    o As an action was based upon written contracts prescribes in ten
    years, hence, the instant action which was filed on May 12, 1963,
    was commenced within the period of statute of limitation.
     LOWER COURT: dismissed the case, the action was already prescribed
    based on the ground of fraud.

    You might also like