Actions; Sales; Warranties; Prescription; Where the cause of action is to hold the seller of a

vehicle for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective engine, the action
should be filed within six months from the delivery of the thing sold.—Under Article 1599 of the
Civil Code, once an express warranty is breached, the buyer can accept or keep the goods and
maintain an action against the seller for damages. In the absence of an existing express warranty
on the part of the respondent, as in this case, the allegations in petitioner’s complaint for damages
were clearly anchored on the enforcement of an implied warranty against hidden defects, i.e., that
the engine of the vehicle which respondent had sold to him was not defective. By filing this case,
petitioner wants to hold respondent responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a
vehicle with defective engine. Such being the case, petitioner should have exercised this right
within six months from the delivery of the thing sold. Since petitioner filed the complaint on April
20, 1999, or more than nineteen months counted from November 29, 1997 (the date of the
delivery of the motor vehicle), his cause of action had become time-barred. De Guzman vs. Toyota
Cubao, Inc., 508 SCRA 408, G.R. No. 141480 November 29, 2006
Facts:

On November 27, 1997, De Guzman (BUYER) purchased from Toyota Cubao (SELLER)
a brand-new vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to BUYER two days later. On October 18, 1998,
BUYER demanded the replacement of the engine of the vehicle because it developed a crack
after traversing Marcos Highway during a heavy rain. As BUYER knows no reason why the
vehicle's engine would crack just like that, the same could only be due to the fact that said engine
and/or the vehicle itself was defective even from the time it was bought. BUYER asserted that
respondent should replace the engine with a new one based on an implied warranty. SELLER
refused to answer for this defect saying it is not covered by the vehicle's warranty. It refused to
replace the vehicle as BUYER demanded (or at least its engine, or even repair the damage).
SELLER further alleged that the BUYER's cause of action had prescribed as the case was filed
more than six months from the date the vehicle was sold and/or delivered.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner’s action is barred by prescription.

Held:
Yes. Where the cause of action is to hold the seller of a vehicle for breach of implied warranty for
having sold a vehicle with defective engine, the action should be filed within six months from the
delivery of the thing sold.—Under Article 1599 of the Civil Code, once an express warranty is
breached, the buyer can accept or keep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for
damages. In the absence of an existing express warranty on the part of the respondent, as in this
case, the allegations in petitioner’s complaint for damages were clearly anchored on the
enforcement of an implied warranty against hidden defects, i.e., that the engine of the vehicle
which respondent had sold to him was not defective. By filing this case, petitioner wants to hold
respondent responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective
engine. Such being the case, petitioner should have exercised this right within six months from
the delivery of the thing sold. Since petitioner filed the complaint on April 20, 1999, or more than
nineteen months counted from November 29, 1997 (the date of the delivery of the motor vehicle),
his cause of action had become time-barred.