Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-29367 December 15, 1928
ROBERTO SOLATORIO, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
ARCADIO SOLATORIO and BASILIO SOLATORIO, defendants-appellees.
Enrique C. Locsin for appellant.
Genaro B. Benedicto and Avancena and Lata for appellees.
MALCOLM, J.:
In an action begun in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, the plaintiff asked that various documents be delared null and fraudulent. But the defense of presription was sustained, and the case dismissed, with costs against the plaintiff.
The case falls within the purview of subdivision 3 of section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The is true because the action is fundamentally "for relief on the ground of fraud." Although one of the principal documents assailed was executed on December 7, 1916, there was no discovery of the alleged fraud, as these terms are used in the law, until June, 1921. Inasmuch as the present action was instituted on August 6, 1926, much more than the four-year limitation had then passed. In a negative way, it may further be said that the action does not come within subdivision 1 of section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which fixes a prescriptive period of ten years, because this is not an action upon an agreement, contract, or promise in writing, or upon the judgment or decree of a court, but is an action predicated on fraud; nor is the action included within any portion of the Penal Code because no proision of the penal law is involved.
The Philippine law on the subject of limitation of actions was taken from the laws of Ohio. In that State, it has been held that a person of full age who seeks to set aside a deed conveying real estate upon the ground that the execution of such deed was secured through fraud and deceit must bring the action within four years after disvcovery of such fraud and deceit (Loffland vs. Bush [1875], 26 O. S., 559; Combs vs. Watson [1877], 32 O. S., 228; Doney vs. Clark [1896], 55 O. S., 294; Melchers vs. Peters [1920], 17 O. App. Rep., 1; Frate vs. Rimenik [1926], 115 O. S., 11; in accord with which is the Philippine case of Macapinlac vs. Gutierrez Repide [1922], 43 Phil., 770, 784).1awphi1.net1awphi1.net
Resolving, therefore, the third assignment of error against the appellant, and having done so, finding it unnecessary to discuss the first two errors assigned, it results in the judgment appealed from being affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.
Johnson, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
