Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-39378 August 28, 1984
GENEROSA AYSON-SIMON, plaintiff-
appellee, vs.NICOLAS AAMOS !"#
$ICENTA %ERIA, defendants-appellants.
Wenceslao V. Jarin for plaintiff-appellee.
Arnovit, Lacre & Adamos for defendants-
appellants.

MELENCIO-&ERRERA, J.:
Oi!inall", this #as an appeal b" defendants
fo$ the Decision of the then %out of Fist
Instance of Manila, &anch '', in %ivil %ase
No. ()*+,, to the %out of -ppeals .no#
Inte$ediate -ppellate %out/, #hich Tibunal,
cetified the case to us because the issue is a pue
0uestion of la#.
On Dece$be 1), 1*+), Nicolas -da$os and
Vicente Feia, defendants-appellants heein,
puchased t#o lots fo$in! pat of the Piedad
2state in 3ue4on %it", #ith an aea of
appo5i$atel" 67,)*6 s0uae $etes, fo$ 8uan
Pociuncula. So$eti$e theeafte, the
successos-in-inteest of the latte filed %ivil
%ase No. 1(+ in the then %out of Fist Instance
of 3ue4on %it" fo annul$ent of the sale and the
cancellation of Tansfe %etificate of Title No.
7*+(6, #hich had been issued to defendants-
appellants b" vitue of the disputed sale. On
Dece$be 19, 1*7), the %out endeed a
Decision annullin! the sale, cancellin! T%T
7*+(6, and authoi4in! the issuance of a ne#
title in favo of Pociuncula:s successos-in-
inteest. The said ;ud!$ent #as affi$ed b" the
-ppellate %out and had attained finalit".
In the $eanti$e, on Ma" ,*, 1*+7, duin! the
pendenc" of the above-$entioned case,
defendants-appellants sold to <2N2ROS-
-"son Si$on, plaintiff-appellee heein, the t#o
lots in 0uestion fo P),9==.== each, plus an
additional P9==.== paid subse0uentl" fo the
pupose of facilitatin! the issuance of ne# titles
in <2N2ROS-:s na$e. Due to the failue of
defendants-appellants to co$pl" #ith thei
co$$it$ent to have the subdivision plan of the
lots appoved and to delive the titles and
possession to <2N2ROS-, the latte filed suit
fo specific pefo$ance befoe the %out of
Fist Instance of 3ue4on %it" on Septe$be +,
1*7) .%ivil %ase No. 3-(,(6/. On 8anua" ,=,
1*7+, said %out odeed>
?@2R2FOR2, the plaintiff is declaed entitled
to a su$$a" ;ud!$ent and the defendants ae
heeb" odeed to have the subdivision of Aot
No. 7, &locB No. ,, and Aot No. 11, &locB No. ),
elocated and esuve"ed and the subdivision
plan appoved and, if not possible fo one eason
o anothe, and in case of the absence o loss of
said subdivision, to cause and effect the
subdivision of the said lots and delive the titles
and possession theeof to the plaintiff. -s to the
clai$ and counteclai$ fo da$a!es, let the
heain! theeon be defeed until futhe $ove
b" the paties. 1
@o#eve, since e5ecution of the foe!oin! Ode
#as endeed i$possible because of the
;ud!$ent in %ivil %ase No. 1(+, #hich ealie
declaed the sale of the lots in 0uestion b" 8uan
Pociuncula to defendants-appellants to be null
and void, <2N2ROS- filed, on -u!ust 17,
1*79, anothe suit in the %out of Fist Instance
of Manila .%ivil %ase No. ()*+,/ fo escission
of the sale #ith da$a!es. On 8une (, 1*7*, the
%out endeed ;ud!$ent, the dispositive potion
of #hich eads>
?@2R2FOR2, ;ud!$ent is endeed in favo of
the plaintiff and a!ainst defendants, odein! the
latte ;ointl" and seveall", to pa" the fo$e the
su$ of P(,7==.==, the total a$ount eceived b"
the$ fo$ he as puchase pice of the t#o lots,
#ith le!al ate of inteest fo$ Ma" ,*, 1*+7
until full" paidC anothe su$ of P9==.==, #ith
le!al ate 7f inteest fo$ -u!ust 1, 1*77 until
full" paidC the su$ of P1,=== fo attone":s feesC
and the costs of this suit.
2
@ence, the appeal befoe the -ppellate %out on
the !ound that <2N2ROS-:s action had
pescibed, considein! that she had onl" fou
"eas fo$ Ma" ,*, 1*+7, the date of sale, #ithin
#hich to escind said tansaction, and that he
co$plaint fo specific pefo$ance $a" be
dee$ed as a #aive of he i!ht to escission
since the fulfill$ent and escission of an
obli!ation ae altenative and not cu$ulative
e$edies.
The appeal is #ithout $eit. The Tial %out
pesided b" then 8ud!e, late %out of -ppeals
-ssociate 8ustice Auis &. Re"es, coectl"
esolved the issues, eiteated in the assi!n$ents
of eo on appeal, as follo#s>
Defendants contend .1/ that the fulfill$ent and
the escission of the obli!ation in ecipocal ones
ae altenative e$edies, and plaintiff havin!
chosen fulfill$ent in %ivil %ase No. 3- (6,6,
she cannot no# seeB escissionC and .,/ that even
if plaintiff could seeB escission the action to
escind the obli!ation has pescibed.
The fist contention is #ithout $eit. The ule
that the in;ued pat" can onl" choose bet#een
fulfill$ent and escission of the obli!ation, and
cannot have both, applies #hen the obli!ation is
possible of fulfill$ent. If, as in this case, the
fulfill$ent has beco$e i$possible, -ticle 11*1
3
allo#s the in;ued pat" to seeB escission even
afte he has chosen fulfill$ent.
Tue it is that in %ivil %ase No. (,(6 the %out
alead" endeed a Decision in favo of plaintiff,
but since defendants cannot fulfill thei
obli!ation to delive the titles to and possession
of the lots to plaintiff, the potion of the decision
e0uiin! the$ to fulfill thei obli!ations is
#ithout foce and effect. Onl" that potion
elative to the pa"$ent of da$a!es e$ains in
the dispositive pat of the decision, since in
eithe case .fulfill$ent o escission/ defendants
$a" be e0uied to pa" da$a!es.
The ne5t 0uestion to dete$ine is #hethe the
action to escind the obli!ation has pescibed.
-ticle 11*1 of the %ivil %ode povides that the
in;ued pat" $a" also seeB escission, if the
fulfill$ent should beco$e i$possible. The cause
of action to clai$ escission aises #hen the
fulfill$ent of the obli!ation beca$e i$possible
#hen the %out of Fist Instance of 3ue4on %it"
in %ivil %ase No. 1(+ declaed the sale of the
land to defendants b" 8uan Pociuncula a
co$plete nullit" and odeed the cancellation of
Tansfe %etificate of Title No. 7*+(6 issued to
the$. Since the t#o lots sold to plaintiff b"
defendants fo$ pat of the land involved in
%ivil %ase No. 1(+, it beca$e i$possible fo
defendants to secue and delive the titles to and
the possession of the lots to plaintiff. &ut
plaintiff had to #ait fo the finalit" of the
decision in %ivil %ase No. 1(+, -ccodin! to the
cetification of the cleB of the %out of Fist
Instance of 3ue4on %it" .25hibit D2-,D/, the
decision in %ivil %ase No. 1(+ beca$e final and
e5ecuto" Das pe ent" of 8ud!$ent dated Ma"
), 1*7( of the %out of -ppeals.D The action fo
escission $ust be co$$enced #ithin fou "eas
fo$ that date, Ma" ), 1*7(. Since the co$plaint
fo escission #as filed on -u!ust 17, 1*79, the
fou "ea peiod #ithin #hich the action $ust be
co$$enced had not e5pied.
Defendants have the obli!ation to etun to
plaintiff the a$ount of P(,7==.== epesentin!
the puchase pice of the t#o lots, and the
a$ount of P9==.== #hich the" eceived fo$
plaintiff to e5pedite the issuance of titles but
#hich the" could not secue b" eason of the
decision in %ivil %ase No. 1(+. Defendant has to
pa" inteest at the le!al ate on the a$ount of
P(,7==.== fo$ Ma" ,*, 1*+7, #hen the"
eceived the a$ount upon the e5ecution of the
deeds of sale, and le!al inteest on the P9==.==
fo$ -u!ust 1, 1*77, #hen the" eceived the
sa$e fo$ plaintiff.
4
?@2R2FOR2, the appealed ;ud!$ent of the
fo$e %out of Fist Instance of Manila, &anch
'', in %ivil %ase No. ()*+,, dated 8une (,
1*7*, is heeb" affi$ed in toto. %osts a!ainst
defendants-appellants.
SO ORD2R2D.
Teehankee, Actg. C.J., Plana, elova,!"tierre#,
Jr. and $e la %"ente, JJ., conc"r.