Facts: Petitioner is the owner of Butuan Shipping Line.

In one the vessels owned by

the petitioner, Philippine Agricultural Trading Corporation boarded 3,400 bags of
copra to be shipped from Masbate to Dipolog City and which said shipment of copra
was insured by PhilAm. While on board, the ship sank amounting to total loss of the
shipments. Because of the loss, the insurer paid the damages to the consignee.
Having subrogated the rights of the consignee, PhilAm instituted a civil case to
recover the money paid to the consignee based on breach of contract of carriage.
While the case was pending, petitioner executed deeds of donations of parcels of
land to his children. The trial court rendered judgment against the petitioner Ke Hong
Cheng in the civil case on December 29, 1993. After the decision became final a writ
of execution was issued but it was not served, Therefore an alias writ was was
applied for which was granted. The sheriff did not found any property under Butuan
Shipping Lines and/or Ke Hong Cheng. In 1997, PhilAm filed complaint for annulling
the deeds of donation made by herein petitioner to his children and alleged the
donation was to defraud his creditors including PhilAm. Petitioner filed an answer
stating that the action had already prescribed.

Issue: Whether or not the action to rescind the donation had already prescribed.

Held: According to the trial court, the period began from December 29, 1993 when
the civil case was resolved. Thus, The CA maintained that, that the four year period
began only on January 1997, the time when it first learned that the judgment award
could not be satisfied because the Ke Hong Cheng had no more properties in his
name. Article 1389 of the Civil Code simply provide that "The action to claim
rescission must be commenced within four years." When the law is silent as to when
the prescriptive shall commence, general rule must apply that it will commence
when the moment the action accrues. An action for rescission must be the last resort
of the creditors and can only be availed after the creditor had exhausted all the
properties. The herein respondent came to know only in January 1997 about the
unlawful conveyances of the petitioner when together with the sheriff and counsel
were to attach the property of the petitioner and it was then only when they found
out it is no longer in the name of the petitioner. Since the respondent filed accion
pauliana on February 1997, a month after the discovery that petitioner had no
property in his name to satisfy the judgment, action for rescission of subject deeds
had not yet prescribed.