Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GARCIA
3. Sometime in 2003, the complainant was offered a house and lot at St.
Raymond Homes, a subdivision developed by the respondent in Bo.
Calendola, San Pedro, Laguna. After much persuasion, the
complainant decided to buy the property at Blk. 5 Lot 16-A priced
at ₱520,000.00 on installment basis. On April 28, 2003, she
paid ₱10,000.00 as down payment and signed a Reservation
Agreement. She also made subsequent payments of ₱10,000.00 on
May 1, 2003; ₱10,000.00 on May 17, 2003; ₱9,600.00 and ₱10,000.00
on September 15 and 16, 2003, respectively; ₱20,000.00 on
December 9, 2003; another ₱20,000.00 on March 5, 2004 and also
₱20,000.00 on June 30, 2004; and ₱11, 224.00 on July 31, 2004
totaling to an amount of P120,824.00. With these payment,
complainant was able to fully pay the total cash required stated in the
reservation agreement.
7. The Supreme Court held in the case of Callangan vs. People (G.R.
NO. 153414, June 27, 2006) that “the rule that the negligence of
counsel binds the client admits of exceptions, to wit:
(a) where reckless or gross negligence of counsel
deprives the client of due process of law;
Facts: Solid Homes, Inc., sold to the Spouses Uy a subdivision lot. The
Spouses Uy sold the same lot to herein respondents, the Spouses Tan.
When respondents visited their property a number of times, they discovered
that there was no infrastructure and utility systems for water, sewerage,
electricity and telephone, as announced in the approved plans and
advertisements of the subdivision. Worse, squatters occupy their lot and its
surrounding areas. In short, there has been no development at all.
Having received no reply from petitioner, respondents filed with the Field
Office of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)-NCR a
complaint for specific performance and damages therein praying, inter alia,
that petitioner be ordered to provide the needed facilities in the premises and
rid the same of squatters; or, in the alternative, for petitioner to replace
respondents' property with another lot in the same subdivision where there
are facilities and sans squatters. The HLURB rendered a decision against
Solid Homes.
Issue: WON respondents' right to bring the instant case against petitioner
has already prescribed
Held: NO. There can be no debate at all on the legal postulate that the
prescriptive period for bringing action for specific performance, as here,
prescribes in ten (10) years. This is so provided in Article 1144 of the Civil
Code. Article 1144 specifically provides that the 10-year period therein
referred to commences to run only from the time the right of action accrues.