67-Roman-Catholic-Arch-of-Manila-v-CA

We do not agree although it is true that under

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: and (b) whether or not the dismissal of the action for rescission of contracts (deed of donation and deed of sale) on the ground of prescription carries with it the dismissal of the main action for reconveyance of real property. 6 On December 23, 1986, respondent Court of Appeals, holding that the action has not yet prescibed, rendered a decision in favor of private respondents, with the following dispositive portion: WHEREFORE, the Order of January 31, 1985 dismissing appellants' complaint is SET ASIDE and Civil Case No. 095- 84 is hereby ordered REINSTATED and REMANDED to the lower court for further proceedings. No Costs. 7 Petitioners Ignao and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Imus then filed their separate motions for reconsideration which were denied by respondent Court of Appeals in its resolution dated February 6, 1987, 8 hence, the filing of these appeals by certiorari. It is the contention of petitioners that the cause of action of herein private respondents has already prescribed, invoking Article 764 of the Civil Code which provides that "(t)he donation shall be revoked at the instance of the donor, when the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions which the former imposed upon the latter," and that "(t)his action shall prescribe after four years from the non- compliance with the condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be exercised against the donee's heirs. We do not agree. Although it is true that under Article 764 of the Civ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 07/12/2013 for the course LAW 101 taught by Professor Tan during the Winter '11 term at University of the Philippines Diliman.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online