CIVIL PROCEDURE - Rule 10

G.R. No. L-48610

SOLEDAD PROVIDO, plaintiff-appellant vs. OCTAVIO ACENAS etc , defendant-appellee

FACTS:

Plaintiff- appellant Soledad Provido was granted a homestead patent over a parcel of land consisting of 79,986 sqm and located at Silway 7, Polomolok, South Cotabato on October 1, 1954. Said land was sold to Acenas on October 15, 1963 who in turn sold it to the National Development Company (NDC) in 1966. NDC then leased said land to Dole Philippines under a Grower Agreement.

On September 19, 1968, Provido filed an action seeking exercise her right to repurchase under Sec. 119 of CA 141 against Acenas. Acenas filed an answer stating that the plaintiff's complaint states no cause of action and thta he no longer owns or holds the property concerned as same was sold to NDC.

Provido files her answer to the counterclaim on December 24, 1968, a motion for leave to amend complaint in order to implead NDC and Dole. Defendants, both NDC and Dole filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that the claim therein set forth had already been extinguished or was bound by the Statute of LImitations and that the complaint did not state any cause of action.

CFI dismissed the case in so far as Dole and NDC were concerned. Provido filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUEs:

1. Whether or not the plaintiff's right to repurchase has prescribed?

2. Whether or not Provido's complaint states a cause of action against Acenas?

RULING:

Assailed orders , SET ASIDE. Remanded for trial on the merits.

The original complaint clearly states a cause of action against Acenas namely the right given by law to Provido to repurchase the property from the buyer within 5 years from the date of the sale. The allegation in the answer that the NDC had already purchased the same from Acenas is of no consequence, for it is not the allegation in the answer but those in the complaint which determine whether or not the complaint itself states a cause of action.

The fact is if an original complaint already states a cause of action in favor of a plaintiff, the subsequent filing of an amended complaint makes the filing retroact to the time the original complaint was filed. (Pangasinan Transportation Co. vs. Philippine Farming Co. Ltd., 81 Phil 273)

Thus in so far as NDC and Dole is concerned, the filing of the amended complaint against them was legally effectuated upon the filing of the original complaint (therefoe within the prescribed period of 5 years), they having immediately stepped into Acenas shoes.