Mialhe vs CA (1391)

March 23, 1990, Mialhe filed a complaint for annulment of sale, reconveyance and damages
vs Rep of Phil and DBP --- they owned land but taken by the govt during martial law – through
threats and intimidation was coerced into selling this land. Extrajudicial demands were
undertaken after Edsa Revolution in 1986 until last demand letter of 1989.

Motion to dismiss due to prescription was filed by respondents.

CA ruled that action had prescribed. Hence this petition.

ISSUE: Whether the action had prescribed.

HELD: Yes. Prescription ha set in.

1. PRESCRIPTION: The reckoning period for prescription for an action for annulment of
Contract of Sale would be four years from the time the defect in the consent ceases.[7]
The alleged threat and intimidation, which vitiated petitioners consent, ceased when Marcos
left the country on February 24, 1986. Since an action for the annulment of contracts must be
filed within four years from the time the cause of vitiation ceases, the suit before the trial court
should have been filed anytime on or before February 24, 1990. In this case, petitioner did so
only on March 23, 1990. Clearly, his action had prescribed by then.

Interruption of Prescription

2. INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTION: Petitioner claims that prescription was

interrupted by the extrajudicial demands made by them.
We are not persuaded. There was no obligation hence there was no relationship of a creditor
and debtor. Respondent has no obligation to reconvey the subject lots because of the existing
Contract of Sale. Although allegedly voidable, it is binding unless annulled by a proper action in
court.[12]