TORTS

Prescription (Art 1146, NCC)

De Guzman v Toyota Cubao, Inc., G.R. No. 169891 (Nov 2, 2006) APPLY
FACTS:

De Guzman bought a Hilux. A yr later, the engine cracked. He contended that under RA No. 7394
(Consumer Act of the Philippines), the prescriptive period is 2 years.

RTC favored respondent, thus, peti.r filed a petition for certiorari (R.45)

ISSUE:

W Toyota is liable.

Held.:

No, de Guzman, petitioner, should have exercised this right within 6 months (ART.1571, NCC) from the
delivery of the thing sold. Since petitioner filed the complaint on April 20, 1999, or more than 19 months
counted from November 29, 1997 (the date of the delivery of the motor vehicle), his cause of action had
become time-barred

Ferrer v Ericta, G.R. No. L-41767 (Aug 23, 1978)

FACTS

On Dec. 31, 1970, son of Sps Francis, Dennis Pfeider, 16, drive a Ford pick up that was overturned
causing the paralysis of passenger Annette Ferrer.

Later, Spouses filed an MR of the decision and of the order denying the motion to set aside order of
default contending that the complaint shows on its face ―that it was filed only on January 6, 1975, or
after the lapse of MORE THAN FOUR YEARS from the date of the accident on December 31, 1970.

Lower C. absolved Sps liabi. Hence, this petition for mandamus.

Issue; Whether the defense of prescription had been deemed waived by the Spouses‘ failure to allege
the same in their answer.

Held: NOT WAIVED. ACTION HAS PRESCRIBED.

As early as Chua Lamko v. Dioso, this Court sustained the dismissal of a counterclaim on the ground of
prescription, although such defense was not raised in the answer of the plaintiff.

Sps were correct. The 4-year period begins from the day the quasi-delict is committed or the date of the
accident.

Santos v Pizardo, G.R. No. 151452 (Jul 29, 2005)

FACTS:
Information dated 25 April 1994, Sibayan was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Multiple
Homicide and Multiple Physical Injuries.

separate civil action was reserved; no civil liability was pronounced. On October 2000, petitioners filed a
complaint for damages against Sibayan, Viron Transit

The RTC dismissed, as actions based on quasi-delict prescribes in 4 years, notwithstanding the
reservation. The CA dismissed for wrong appeal.

ISSUE:

W civ action prescribed

HELD:

No, prescription of the action ex quasi delicto does not operate as a bar to an action to enforce the civil
liability arising from crime esp. in this case that was expressly reserved.

Fortuitous Event
Gotesco v Chatto, 210 SCRA 18 (1992)

Cokaliong Shipping Lines v

UCPB General Insurance Co., G.R. No. 146018 (Jun 25, 2003)

Assumption of Risk

Transporto v Mijares, 1 CAR 2s 860 (1961)

Ilocos Norte Electric Co. v CA, 179 SCRA 5 (1989)