Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Khe VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    mysch
    This case involves a petitioner who owned a shipping company. One of his ships sank, causing the loss of a shipment of copra insured by PhilAm insurance company. PhilAm paid damages to the recipient of the shipment. PhilAm then sued the petitioner for breach of contract, and obtained a judgment against him in 1993. However, when attempting to execute the judgment, it was discovered the petitioner had no assets, as he had previously donated parcels of land to his children. PhilAm then sued in 1997 to rescind the land donations, claiming they were done to defraud creditors. The petitioner argued the action had prescribed. The court ruled the 4-year period began in 1997 when PhilAm discovered the judgment could not be

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Khe VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    mysch
    16 views1 page
    This case involves a petitioner who owned a shipping company. One of his ships sank, causing the loss of a shipment of copra insured by PhilAm insurance company. PhilAm paid damages to the recipient of the shipment. PhilAm then sued the petitioner for breach of contract, and obtained a judgment against him in 1993. However, when attempting to execute the judgment, it was discovered the petitioner had no assets, as he had previously donated parcels of land to his children. PhilAm then sued in 1997 to rescind the land donations, claiming they were done to defraud creditors. The petitioner argued the action had prescribed. The court ruled the 4-year period began in 1997 when PhilAm discovered the judgment could not be

    Original Title

    KHE VS CA.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petitioner who owned a shipping company. One of his ships sank, causing the loss of a shipment of copra insured by PhilAm insurance company. PhilAm paid damages to the recipient of the shipment. PhilAm then sued the petitioner for breach of contract, and obtained a judgment against him in 1993. However, when attempting to execute the judgment, it was discovered the petitioner had no assets, as he had previously donated parcels of land to his children. PhilAm then sued in 1997 to rescind the land donations, claiming they were done to defraud creditors. The petitioner argued the action had prescribed. The court ruled the 4-year period began in 1997 when PhilAm discovered the judgment could not be

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views1 page

    Khe VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    mysch
    This case involves a petitioner who owned a shipping company. One of his ships sank, causing the loss of a shipment of copra insured by PhilAm insurance company. PhilAm paid damages to the recipient of the shipment. PhilAm then sued the petitioner for breach of contract, and obtained a judgment against him in 1993. However, when attempting to execute the judgment, it was discovered the petitioner had no assets, as he had previously donated parcels of land to his children. PhilAm then sued in 1997 to rescind the land donations, claiming they were done to defraud creditors. The petitioner argued the action had prescribed. The court ruled the 4-year period began in 1997 when PhilAm discovered the judgment could not be

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Rescissible Contracts: Ke Hong Cheng vs CA G.R. No 144169 No.

    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.

    You might also like