have resorted to the remedy of appealing the case to the Court of Appeals by filing a notice of appeal with the RTC. Second, even if the Court were to disregard the procedural infirmity, the petition should be denied for lack of merit. In his complaint, petitioner alleged and prayed, thus: 2. Last 27 November 1997, the plaintiff purchased from the defendant a brand new Toyota Hilux 2.4 motor vehicle with [E]ngine [N]o. 2-L-9514743. It was delivered to the plaintiff on 29 November 1997. Copies of the Vehicle Sales Invoice and Vehicle Delivery Note issued by the defendant are hereto attached as Annexes A and B, respectively.
3. Last 18 October 1998, after only 12,000 kilometers of use, the vehicles engine cracked. Although it was previously driven through a heavy rain, it didnt pass through flooded streets high enough to stop sturdy and resistant vehicles. Besides, vehicles of this class are advertised as being capable of being driven on flooded areas or rugged terrain. 4. As plaintiff knows no reason why the vehicles 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. 5. Brought to the attention, defendant refused to answer for this defect saying it is not covered by the vehicles warranty. It refused to replace the vehicle as plaintiff demanded (or at least its engine, or even repair the damage). 6. As a result of defendants actions, plaintiff suffered mental anxiety and sleepless nights for which he demands an award of P200,000.00 moral damages. 7. By way of example for the public good, plaintiff should also be awarded exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00. 8. Forced to litigate to enforce his rights, plaintiff incurred, and shall further incur, litigation-related expenses (including those for his counsels fees) in the total estimated sum of P100,000. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered ordering defendant: a. to replace the subject vehicle with a brand new one or at least to replace its engine all at defendants cost; b. pay the plaintiff: i. P200,000 moral damages; ii. P200,000 exemplary damages; iii. P200,000 attorneys fees and litigation expenses; and iv. the costs of suit. Other reliefs just and equitable are, likewise, prayed for.Petitioner contends that the dismissal on the ground of prescription was erroneous because the applicable provision is Article 169 of Republic Act No. 7394 (otherwise known as The Consumer Act of the Philippines which was approved on April 13, 1992), and not Article 1571 of the Civil Code. Petitioner specifies that in his complaint, he neither asked for a rescission of the contract of sale nor did he pray for a proportionate reduction of the purchase
price.What petitioner claims is the enforcement of the contract, that is, that respondent should replace either the vehicle or its engine with a new one. In this regard, petitioner cites Article 169 of Republic Act No. 7394 as the applicable provision, so as to make his suit come within the purview of the two-year prescriptive period. Tangentially, petitioner also justifies