You are on page 1of 1

Caoibes v Caoibes-Pantoja delivery of the property to respondent.

G.R. No. 162873 July 21, 2006 In Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, it was held that: “The law does not require that
the application for registration be amended by substituting the buyer or the
Petitioners: Jose Caoibes, Jr, Melencio Caoibes and Loida Caoibes person to whom the property has been conveyed for the applicant. Neither does it
Respondents: Corazon Caoibes-Pantoja, assisted by her husband Conrado Pantoja require that the buyer or the person to whom the property has been conveyed be a
RULING: party to the case. He may thus be a total stranger to the land registration
proceedings. The only requirements of the law are: (1) that the instrument be
FACTS presented to the court by the interested party together with a motion that the
same be considered in relation with the application; and (2) that prior notice be
Petitioners and Respondent entered to an agreement entitled Renunciation and given to the parties to the case.” (same is found in Sec 22 of Property Registration
Transfer of Claims, Rights, and Interest (the agreement) covering a parcel of land Decree)
situated in Calaca, Batangas. The agreement contains that the petitioners In light of the law and jurisprudence, the substitution by respondent of
renounced, relinquished, abandoned, and transferred, ceded and conveyed petitioners as applicant in the land registration case over Lot 2 is not even
whatever rights they may have over the lot in favor of the respondent, and on necessary. All respondent has to do is to comply with the requirements under the
account of the renunciation and transfer, petitioners transferred whatever rights above-quoted Sec. 22 of the Property Registration Decree. Ergo, it was
they may have in the prosecution of the land registration proceeding. unnecessary for respondent to file the case for specific performance subject of the
About 14 years after the execution of the said agreement, respondent filed a present petition against petitioners to honor their agreement allowing her to be
motion to intervene and be substituted as applicant for the Land Registration substituted in their stead as applicant in the land registration proceeding.
Petitioners opposed the substitution and denied the authenticity and due NOTE: (ratio of the case was written in a confusing way as to the relation of the
execution of the agreement. They argue that it was without consent and prescription and substitution, but this is my take)
conformity of their mother, the usufructuary owner. A cause of action arises when that which should have been done is not done, or
LRC denied respondent’s motion. that which should not have been done is done, and in cases where there is no
Respondent then filed a complaint for Specific Performance and Damages against special provision for such computation, recourse must be had to the rule that the
petitioners before the RTC for the enforcement of the agreement. period must be counted from the day on which the corresponding action could
Petitioners filed a MTD on the ground of prescription, laches and prematurity of have been instituted.
action for failure to first refer the case to the barangay lupon for conciliation. ART In this case, the substitution is not necessary for the cause of action for the
1144 (1) NCC states that an action founded upon a written contract must be specific performance to arise, thus the time of recognition is at the execution of
brought within 10 yrs from the right of action accrues the agreement and not from the opposition of the substitution.
RTC: Prescription had set in. The respondents should have asked for the
substitution from the time of the execution of the agreement, waiting for almost
18 years from the execution of the contract and the filing of the complaint is way
beyond the prescriptive period set by law.
CA: Reversed RTC. The cause of action for the filing of this case only arise when
the respondents moved for the substitution and the petitioners opposing the
same. Thus action has not prescribed yet.


1. Whether or not the action of for prescription on Pantoja started from the
time of the agreement of the parties and not on the opposition of the
petitioner in the substitution - YES

The agreement is analogous to a deed of sale in favor of the respondent, it having
transferred ownership for and in consideration of P19,000. The agreement having
been made through a public document, the execution was equivalent to the