On April 7, 1980, petitioner Solid Homes, Inc.

, sold to the spouses Joe Uy and Myrna Uy a subdivision lot with an area of 1,069 square meters, more particularly identified as Lot 18, Block 2, located at petitioner s Loyola Grand Villas Subdivision, Quezon City. Under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 280963/T-1409 of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, the lot was registered in the name of the Uys. In February, 1985, the lot was sold to respondents, the spouses Ancheta K. Tan and Corazon de Jesus-Tan, by reason of which the former title covering the lot was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. RT-14465 (327754) in respondents name.

From then on, respondents visited their property a number of times, only to find out the sad state of development thereat. There was no infrastructure and utility systems for water, sewerage, of the subdivision. Worse, squatters occupy their lot and its surrounding areas. In short, there has been no development at all.

After several visits, the respondents found out the poor state of the development in the subdivision. The utility service for water, sewerage, electricity and telephone, as announced in the approved plans and advertisements were lacking and squatters occupy. Afterwards, respondents demanded on petitioner to provide the needed utility systems and clear the area of squatters and other obstructions by the end of January, 1996 to enable them to start the construction of their house thereon and to allow other lot owners in the area a full access to and peaceful possession of their respective lots, conformably with P.D. No. 957. Having received no reply from petitioner, respondents filed with the Field Office of the HLURB, NCR a complaint for specific performance and damages therein praying, that petitioner be ordered to provide the needed facilities in the premises and rid the same of squatters; or, in the alternative, for petitioner to replace respondents property with another lot in the same subdivision where there are facilities and sans squatters. After due proceedings, the Housing and Land Use Arbiter, in a decision dated September 17, 1996, rendered judgment for the respondents by directing petitioner to perform its obligations to residents and pay complainants P20,000.00. Trial court affirmed said prayers and petitioner then filed a motion for partial reconsideration. Such appeal was denied and afterwards petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied as well. Its next recourse was the filing of its petition claiming that the court erred in its decision.
3

Issues:
(1) whether or not respondents right to bring the instant case against petitioner has already prescribed; and (2) In the event respondents opt to rescind the contract, should petitioner pay them merely the price they paid for the lot plus interest or the current market value thereof.

Ruling: 1) There can be no debate at all on the legal postulate that the prescriptive period for bringing action for
specific performance, as here, prescribes in ten (10) years. This is so provided in Article 1144 of the Civil Code. respondents made their written demand upon petitioner to perform what is incumbent upon it only on December 18, 1995, it was only from that date when the 10-year prescriptive period under Article 1144 commenced to run. And since respondents complaint for specific performance was filed with the Field Office of the HLURB only on April 1, 1996, or less than four (4) months after the date of their demand, petitioner s reliance on prescription of action is simply without any leg to stand on. 2) Indeed, there would be unjust enrichment if respondents Solid Homes, Inc. & Purita Soliven are made to pay only the purchase price plus interest. It is definite that the value of the subject property already escalated after almost two decades from the time the petitioner paid for it. Equity and justice dictate that the injured party should be paid the market value of the lot, otherwise, respondents Solid Homes, Inc. & Purita Soliven would enrich themselves at the expense of herein lot owners when they sell the same lot at the present market value. unconscionable.