20.

MIAILHE v CA ● CA - ruled that the petitioners action had prescribed

GR NO. 108991 ● Thus, this petition.
MARCH 20, 2001
By: YRREVERRE ISSUE:
Topic: PRESCRIPTION (1) W/N the petitioner’s action had prescribed – Yes
Petitioners: WILLIAM ALAIN MIAILHE (2) W/N the petitioner’s extrajudicial demands did not interrupt
Respondents: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES prescription - Yes
Ponente: PANGANIBAN, J.
HELD/RATIO:
RECIT-READY/SUMMARY:
(1)
● YES. The records in this case indubitably show the lapse of the
DOCTRINE:
prescriptive period, thus warranting the immediate dismissal of the
1. If the ground for annulment is vitiation of consent by intimidation, the
Complaint.
four-year period starts from the time such defect ceases.
● period for prescription would be that pertaining to an action for the
2. The running of this prescriptive period cannot be interrupted by an
annulment of contract; that is, four years from the time the defect in the
extrajudicial demand made by the party whose consent was vitiated.
consent ceases.
● The foregoing clearly shows that the alleged threat and intimidation,
FACTS: which vitiated petitioners consent, ceased when Marcos left the country on
● Miailhe were the former registered owners of three parcels of land located February 24, 1986. Since an action for the annulment of contracts must be
at Manila. filed within four years from the time the cause of vitiation ceases, the suit
● The properties had been owned by and in the possession of Miailhe and before the trial court should have been filed anytime on or before February
their family for over one hundred (100) years until August 1, 1976 24, 1990.
● During the height of the martial law regime of the late President Ferdinand ● In this case, petitioner did so only on March 23, 1990. Clearly, his action
Marcos, Republic of the Philippines, through its armed forces, forcibly and had prescribed by then.
unlawfully took possession of the aforesaid properties.
● Republic of the Philippines, through its armed forces, continued its lawful (2)
and forcible occupation of the premises from August 1, 1976 to August
● YES. In order for extrajudicial demand to interrupt prescription there must
19, 1977 without paying rentals, despite plaintiffs demands.
be a creditor-debtor relationship established.
● The Office of the President showed interest in the subject properties and
● ART. 1155. The prescription of actions is interrupted when they are filed
directed DBP (Development Bank of the Philippines) to acquire for the
before the court, when there is extrajudicial demand by the creditors, and
government the subject properties.
when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.
● Through threats and intimidation employed, Miailhe, under duress, were
● It is clear that for there to be a creditor and a debtor to speak of, an
coerced into selling the subject properties to defendant DBP for the
obligation must first exist.
grossly low price.
● In the present case, there is as yet no obligation in existence.
● DBP, in turn, sold the subject properties to Republic of the Philippines.
● In the absence of an existing obligation, petitioner cannot be considered a
● After the late President Marcos left the country on February 24, 1986 after
creditor, and Article 1155 of the Civil Code cannot be applied to his
the EDSA revolution, Miailhe made repeated extrajudicial demands upon
action. Thus, any extrajudicial demand he made did not, or will not,
DBP for return and reconveyance of subject properties to them.
interrupt the prescription of his action for the annulment of the Contract of
● Despite demands, DBP unjustifiably failed and refused, and still
Sale.
unjustifiably fail and refuse, to return and reconvey the subject properties.
● Respondents WON. Petition was denied
● On March 23, 1990, Miailhe filed a Complaint for Annulment of Sale,
Reconveyance and Damages against Republic of the Philippines and
Development Bank of the Philippines.
● TC - denied motion to dismissed on the ground of prescription
 WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.

ANNOTATIONS:

(1) Prescription must yield to the higher interest of justice.

(2) An action for annulment of a contract entered into by minors or other
incapacitated persons shall be brought within four years from the time
the guardianship ceases.
(3) An action to annul a voidable contract based on fraud should be brought
within four (4) years from the discovery of the same.