Imperial v. CA
GR No. 112483, October 8, 1999
FACTS:
In 1951, Leoncio sold his 32, 837m² parcel of land to his acknowledged natural son Eloy Imperial. However, in 1953, Leoncio filed a copmplaint for annulment of the sale alleging that he was deceived by his son. They entered into a compromise agreement that Leoncio will recognize the validity and legality of the sale but Eloy has to sold the 1000m² to Leoncio. In 1962, Leoncio died and Victor, his adopted child, substituted him in the execution of the compromise agreement. However, in 1977, Victor died single and without issue. After 4 years, Ricardo, Victors’s natural father, died too. Cesar and Trasa, children of Ricardo, filed a complaint for annulment of the donation. A motion to dismiss was filed on the ground of res judicata. The trial court dismissed the case. On appeal, the CA reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Cesar and Teresa filed an Amended Complaint alleging that the conveyance impaired the legitime of Victor. The RTC ruled that the donation is inofficiousimparing the legitime of Victor. CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the action for inofficious donation has prescribed.
RULING:
Yes. The Supreme court applied Article 1144 of the Civil Code which atates that “actions upon an obligation created by law must be brought within ten years from the time the right accrues. Here, the right accrues from the moment Leoncio died, but it took the respondents 24 years to file the action.
Also, there is estoppel by laches on their part. First, Victor is a lawyer; he even substituted his father in the execution of the compromise agreement regarding the contested conveyance of parcel of land. Second, Richardo is the lessee of the contested land and it is expected that he was aware of the sale of the land. And, the respondents only institud the complaint five years after the death of Ricardo.
The petition is granted.
