1) Petitioner Khe Hong Cheng donated land to his children, the co-petitioners, in 1989.
2) In 1993, a court ruled against Khe Hong Cheng in a case brought by Philam Insurance regarding a sunken shipment.
3) In 1997, Philam filed a complaint to rescind the land donations, alleging they were done to defraud creditors like Philam.
4) The main issue is whether Philam's complaint in 1997 was still within the 4-year period to file an action to rescind donations under Article 1389 of the Civil Code.
1) Petitioner Khe Hong Cheng donated land to his children, the co-petitioners, in 1989.
2) In 1993, a court ruled against Khe Hong Cheng in a case brought by Philam Insurance regarding a sunken shipment.
3) In 1997, Philam filed a complaint to rescind the land donations, alleging they were done to defraud creditors like Philam.
4) The main issue is whether Philam's complaint in 1997 was still within the 4-year period to file an action to rescind donations under Article 1389 of the Civil Code.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
1) Petitioner Khe Hong Cheng donated land to his children, the co-petitioners, in 1989.
2) In 1993, a court ruled against Khe Hong Cheng in a case brought by Philam Insurance regarding a sunken shipment.
3) In 1997, Philam filed a complaint to rescind the land donations, alleging they were done to defraud creditors like Philam.
4) The main issue is whether Philam's complaint in 1997 was still within the 4-year period to file an action to rescind donations under Article 1389 of the Civil Code.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Petitioner Khe Hong Cheng likewise donated in favor SUPREME COURT of Sandra Joy two (2) parcels of land located in Baguio City Butuan City, covered by TCT No. RT-12838. On the FIRST DIVISION basis of said deeds, TCT No. T-3816 was cancelled G.R. No. 144169 March 28, 200 and in lieu thereof, TCT No. T-5072 was issued in favor of Ray Steven and TCT No. RT-12838 was KHE HONG CHENG, alias FELIX KHE, SANDRA cancelled and in lieu thereof, TCT No. RT-21054 was JOY KHE and RAY STEVEN KHE, petitioners, issued in the name of Sandra Joy. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. TEOFILO GUADIZ, The trial court rendered judgment against petitioner RTC 147, MAKATI CITY and PHILAM Khe Hong Cheng in Civil Case No.13357 on INSURANCE CO., INC., respondents. December 29, 1993, four years after the donations were made and the TCTs were registered in the KAPUNAN, J.: donees' names. The decretal portion of the Before the Court is a Petition for Review on aforesaid decision reads: Certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to set aside the "Wherefore, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 10, Court hereby renders judgment in favor of 2000 and its resolution dated July 11, 2000 denying the plaintiff and against the defendant, the motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid ordering the latter to pay the former: decision. The original complaint that is the subject matter of this case is an accion pauliana -- an action 1) the sum of P354,000.00 representing the filed by Philam Insurance Company, Inc. (respondent amount paid by the plaintiff to the Philippine Philam) to rescind or annul the donations made by Agricultural Trading Corporation with legal petitioner Khe Hong Cheng allegedly in fraud of interest at 12% from the time of the filing of creditors. The main issue for resolution is whether or the complaint in this case; not the action to rescind the donations has already 2) the sum of P50,000.00 as attorney's fees; prescribed. While the first paragraph of Article 1389 3) the costs.1 of the Civil Code states: "The action to claim rescission must be commenced within four years..." After the said decision became final and executory, the question is, from which point or event does this a writ of execution was forthwith' issued on prescriptive period commence to run? September 14, 1995. Said writ of execution however, was not served. An alias writ of execution The facts are as follows: was, thereafter, applied for and granted in October Petitioner Khe Hong Cheng, alias Felix Khe, is the 1996. Despite earnest efforts, the sheriff found no owner of Butuan Shipping Lines. It appears that on property under the name of Butuan Shipping Lines or about October 4, 1985, the Philippine Agricultural and/or petitioner Khe Hong Cheng to levy or garnish Trading Corporation shipped on board the vessel for the satisfaction of the trial court's decision. M/V PRINCE ERIC, owned by petitioner Khe Hong When the sheriff, accompanied by counsel of Cheng, 3,400 bags of copra at Masbate, Masbate, respondent Philam, went to Butuan City on January for delivery to Dipolog City, Zamboanga del Norte. 17, 1997, to enforce the alias writ of execution, they The said shipment of copra was covered by a discovered that petitioner Khe Hong Cheng no marine insurance policy issued by American Home longer had any property and that he had conveyed Insurance Company (respondent Philam's assured). the subject properties to his children. M/V PRINCE ERlC, however, sank somewhere between Negros Island and Northeastern Mindanao, On February 25, 1997, respondent Philam filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court of Makati resulting in the total loss of the shipment. Because City, Branch 147, for the rescission of the deeds of of the loss, the insurer, American Home, paid the donation executed by petitioner Khe Hong Cheng in amount of P354,000.00 (the value of the copra) to favor of his children and for the nullification of their the consignee.1âwphi1.nêt titles (Civil Case No.97-415). Respondent Philam Having been subrogated into the rights of the alleged, inter alia, that petitioner Khe Hong Cheng consignee, American Home instituted Civil Case No. executed the aforesaid deeds in fraud of his 13357 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati , creditors, including respondent Philam.2 Branch 147 to recover the money paid to the Petitioners subsequently filed their answer to the consignee, based on breach of contract of carriage. complaint a quo. They moved for its dismissal on While the case was still pending, or on December the ground that the action had already prescribed. 20, 1989, petitioner Khe Hong Cheng executed They posited that the registration of the deeds of deeds of donations of parcels of land in favor of his donation on December 27, 1989 constituted children, herein co-petitioners Sandra Joy and Ray constructive notice and since the complaint a quo Steven. The parcel of land with an area of 1,000 was filed only on February 25, 1997, or more than square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of four (4) years after said registration, the action was HAVE ALREADY LAPSED AND THEREFORE, IT already barred by prescription.3 HAS ALREADY PRESCRIBED.6 Acting thereon, the trial court denied the motion to Essentially, the issue for resolution posed by dismiss. It held that respondent Philam's complaint petitioners is this: When did the four (4) year had not yet prescribed. According to the trial court, prescriptive period as provided for in Article 1389 of the prescriptive period began to run only from the Civil Code for respondent Philam to file its action December 29, 1993, the date of the decision of the for rescission of the subject deeds of donation trial court in Civil Case No. 13357.4 commence to run? On appeal by petitioners, the CA affirmed the trial The petition is without merit. court's decision in favor of respondent Philam. The Article 1389 of the Civil Code simply provides that, CA declared that the action to rescind the donations "The action to claim rescission must be commenced had not yet prescribed. Citing Articles 1381 and within four years." Since this provision of law is 1383 of the Civil Code, the CA basically ruled that silent as to when the prescriptive period would the four year period to institute the action for commence, the general rule, i.e., from the moment rescission began to run only in January 1997, and the cause of action accrues, therefore, applies. not when the decision in the civil case became final Article 1150 of the Civil Code is particularly and executory on December 29, 1993. The CA instructive: reckoned the accrual of respondent Philam's cause of action on January 1997, the time when it first Art. 1150. The time for prescription for all learned that the judgment award could not be kinds of actions, when there is no special satisfied because the judgment creditor, petitioner provision which ordains otherwise, shall be Khe Hong Cheng, had no more properties in his counted from the day they may be brought. name. Prior thereto, respondent Philam had not yet Indeed, this Court enunciated the principle that it is exhausted all legal means for the satisfaction of the the legal possibility of bringing the action which decision in its favor, as prescribed under Article determines the starting point for the computation of 1383 of the Civil Code.5 the prescriptive period for the action.7 Article 1383 The Court of Appeals thus denied the petition for of the Civil Code provides as follows: certiorari filed before it, and held that the trial court Art. 1383. An action for rescission is did not commit any error in denying petitioners' subsidiary; it cannot be instituted except motion to dismiss. Their motion for reconsideration when the party suffering damage has no was likewise dismissed in the appellate court's other legal means to obtain reparation for resolution dated July 11, 2000. the same. Petitioners now assail the aforesaid decision and It is thus apparent that an action to rescind or an resolution of the CA alleging that: accion pauliana must be of last resort, availed of I only after all other legal remedies have been exhausted and have been proven futile. For an PUBLIC RESPONDENT GRAVELY ERRED AND accion pauliana to accrue, the following requisites ACTED IN GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION must concur: WHEN IT DENIED THE PETITION TO DISMISS THE CASE BASED ON THE GROUND OF 1) That the plaintiff asking for rescission has PRESCRIPTION. a credit prior to, the alienation, although demandable later; 2) That the debtor has II made a subsequent contract conveying a PUBLIC RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS patrimonial benefit to a third person; 3) That GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT the creditor has no other legal remedy to PRESCRIPTION BEGINS TO RUN WHEN IN satisfy his claim, but would benefit by JANUARY 1997 THE SHERIFF WENT TO rescission of the conveyance to the third BUTUAN CITY IN SEARCH OF PROPERTIES OF person; 4) That the act being impugned is PETITIONER FELIX KHE CHENG TO SATISFY fraudulent; 5) That the third person who THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE NO.13357 AND received the property conveyed, if by FOUND OUT THAT AS EARLY AS DEC. 20, onerous title, has been an accomplice in the 1989, PETITIONERS KHE CHENG EXECUTED fraud.8 (Emphasis ours) THE DEEDS OF DONATIONS IN FAVOR OF HIS We quote with approval the following disquisition of CO-PETITIONERS THAT THE ACTION FOR the CA on the matter: RESCISSION ACCRUED BECAUSE PRESCRIPTION BEGAN TO RUN WHEN THESE An accion pauliana accrues only when the DONATIONS WERE REGISTERED WITH THE creditor discovers that he has no other legal REGISTER OF DEEDS IN DECEMBER 1989, remedy for the satisfaction of his claim AND WHEN THE COMPLAINT WAS FILED ONLY against the debtor other than an accion IN FEBRUARY 1997, MORE THAN FOUR YEARS pauliana. The accion pauliana is an action of a last resort. For as long as the creditor still that the creditor has exhausted the property of the has a remedy at law for the enforcement of debtor: The date of the decision of the trial court is his claim against the debtor, the creditor will immaterial. What is important is that the credit of not have any cause of action against the the plaintiff antedates that of the fraudulent creditor for rescission of the contracts alienation by the debtor of his property. After all, entered into by and between the debtor and the decision of the trial court against the debtor will another person or persons. Indeed, an accion retroact to the time when the debtor became pauliana presupposes a judgment and the indebted to the creditor. issuance by the trial court of a writ of Tolentino, a noted civilist, explained: execution for the satisfaction of the judgment and the failure of the Sheriff to "xxx[T]herefore, credits with suspensive enforce and satisfy the judgment of the term or condition are excluded, because the court. It presupposes that the creditor has accion pauliana presupposes a judgment and exhausted the property of the debtor. The unsatisfied execution, which cannot exist date of the decision of the trial court against when the debt is not yet demandable at the the debtor is immaterial. What is important is time the rescissory action is brought. that the credit of the plaintiff antedates that Rescission is a subsidiary action, which of the fraudulent alienation by the debtor of presupposes that the creditor has exhausted his property. After all, the decision of the trial the property of the debtor which is court against the debtor will retroact to the impossible in credits which cannot be time when the debtor became indebted to enforced because of a suspensive term or the creditor.9 condition. Petitioners, however, maintain that the cause of While it is necessary that the credit of the action of respondent Philam against them for the plaintiff in the accion pauliana must be prior rescission of the deeds of donation accrued as early to the fraudulent alienation, the date of the as December 27, 1989, when petitioner Khe Hong judgment enforcing it is immaterial. Even if Cheng registered the subject conveyances with the the judgment be subsequent to the Register of Deeds. Respondent Philam allegedly had alienation, it is merely declaratory with constructive knowledge of the execution of said retroactive effect to the date when the credit deeds under Section 52 of Presidential Decree No. was constituted."10 1529, quoted infra, as follows: These principles were reiterated by the Court when Section 52. Constructive knowledge upon it explained the requisites of an accion pauliana in registration. - Every conveyance, mortgage, greater detail, to wit: lease, lien, attachment, order, judgment, "The following successive measures must be instrument or entry affecting registered land taken by a creditor before he may bring an shall, if registered, filed or entered in the action for rescission of an allegedly Office of the Register of Deeds for the fraudulent sale: (1) exhaust the properties of province or city where the land to which it the debtor through levying by attachment relates lies, be constructive notice to all and execution upon all the property of the persons from the time of such registering, debtor, except such as are exempt from filing, or entering. execution; (2) exercise all the rights and Petitioners argument that the Civil Code must yield actions of the debtor, save those personal to to the Mortgage and Registration Laws is misplaced, him (accion subrogatoria); and (3) seek for in no way does this imply that the specific rescission of the contracts executed by the provisions of the former may be all together debtor in fraud of their rights (accion ignored. To count the four year prescriptive period pauliana). Without availing of the first and to rescind an allegedly fraudulent contract from the second remedies, i.e.. exhausting the date of registration of the conveyance with the properties of the debtor or subrogating Register of Deeds, as alleged by the petitioners, themselves in Francisco Bareg's would run counter to Article 1383 of the Civil Code transmissible rights and actions. petitioners as well as settled jurisprudence. It would likewise simply: undertook the third measure and violate the third requisite to file an action for filed an action for annulment of sale. This rescission of an allegedly fraudulent conveyance of cannot be done."11 (Emphasis ours) property, i.e., the creditor has no other legal remedy In the same case, the Court also quoted the to satisfy his claim. rationale of the CA when it upheld the dismissal of An accion pauliana thus presupposes the following: the accion pauliana on the basis of lack of cause of 1) A judgment; 2) the issuance by the trial court of a action: writ of execution for the satisfaction of the "In this case, plaintiffs appellants had not judgment, and 3) the failure of the sheriff to enforce even commenced an action against and satisfy the judgment of the court. It requires defendants-appellees Bareng for the petitioner Khe Hong Cheng had no other property to collection of the alleged indebtedness, satisfy the judgment award against him, its action Plaintiffs-appellants had not even tried to for rescission of the subject deeds clearly had not exhaust the property of defendants- yet prescribed.1âwphi1.nêt appellees Bareng, Plaintiffs-appellants, in A final point. Petitioners now belatedly raise on seeking the rescission of the contracts of sale appeal the defense of improper venue claiming that entered into between defendants-appellees, respondent Philam's complaint is a real action and failed to show and prove that defendants- should have been filed with the RTC of Butuan City appellees Bareng had no other property, since the property subject matter or the donations either at the time of the sale or at the timeare located therein. Suffice it to say that petitioners this action was filed, out of which they could are already deemed to have waived their right to have collected this (sic) debts." (Emphasis question the venue of the instant case. Improper ours) venue should be objected to as follows 1) in a Even if respondent Philam was aware, as of motion to dismiss filed within the time but before December 27, 1989, that petitioner Khe Hong Cheng the filing of the answer;13 or 2) in the answer as an had executed the deeds of donation in favor of his affirmative defense over which, in the discretion of children, the complaint against Butuan Shipping the court, a preliminary hearing may be held as if a Lines and/or petitioner Khe Hong Cheng was still motion to dismiss had been filed.14 Having failed to pending before the trial court. Respondent Philam either file a motion to dismiss on the ground of had no inkling, at the time, that the trial court’s improper of venue or include the same as an judgment would be in its favor and further, that affirmative defense in their answer, petitioners are such judgment would not be satisfied due to the deemed to have their right to object to improper deeds of donation executed by petitioner Khe Hong venue. Cheng during the pendency of the case. Had WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is respondent Philam filed his complaint on December hereby DENIED for lack of merit. 27, 1989, such complaint would have been dismissed for being premature. Not only were all SO ORDERED. other legal remedies for the enforcement of Davide, Jr., Puno, Pardo, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., respondent Philam's claims not yet exhausted at the concur. time the needs of donation were executed and registered. Respondent Philam would also not have Footnote been able to prove then that petitioner Khe Hong 1 Rollo, p. 106-107. Cheng had no more property other than those 2 Id., at 50-55. covered by the subject deeds to satisfy a favorable judgment by the trial court. 3 Id., at 57-60. It bears stressing that petitioner Khe Hong Cheng 4 Id., at 70-71. even expressly declared and represented that he 5 Id., at 44-47. had reserved to himself property sufficient to 6 answer for his debts contracted prior to this date: Id., at 16. 7 "That the DONOR further states, for the same Constancia C. Tolentino vs. CA, et at., 162 purpose as expressed in the next preceding SCRA 66, 72. paragraph, that this donation is not made 8 Siguan vs. Lim, 318 SCRA 725, 735, quoting with the object of defrauding his creditors TOLENTINO, ARTHUR M., CIVIL CODE OF THE having reserved to himself property sufficient PHILIPPINES 576 (1991); citing 8 Manresa to answer his debts contracted prior to this 756, 2 Castan 543-555, and 3 Camus 207. date".12 9 See Note 1, at 44-45. As mentioned earlier, respondent Philam only 10 learned about the unlawful conveyances made by Tolentino, New Civil Code, Volume IV, petitioner Khe Hong Cheng in January 1997 when its 1973, ed., at p. 543. counsel accompanied the sheriff to Butuan City to 11 Adorable vs. CA, 319 SCRA 201, 207 attach the properties of petitioner Khe Hong Cheng. (1999). There they found that he no longer had any 12 properties in his name. It was only then that Annex "K". respondent Philam's action for rescission of the 13 Section 1, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Court. deeds of donation accrued because then it could be 14 Section 6, Rule 16, 1997 Rules of Court. said that respondent Philam had exhausted all legal means to satisfy the trial court's judgment in its favor. Since respondent Philam filed its complaint for accion pauliana against petitioners on February 25, 1997, barely a month from its discovery that
Serafin Modina, Petitioner vs. Court of Appeals and Ernesto Hontarciego, Paul Figueroa, Teodoro Hipalla and Ramon Chiang, Merlinda Chiang, Respondents.