Multi-Realty Development Corporation v.
Makati Tuscany alleged that Matusco knew that petitioner owned the 98
Condominium Corporation
Facts:
The petitioner constructed condominium. Pursuant to RA
4726, respondent Makati Tuscany Condominium
Corporation (Matusco) was organized and established to
manage the condominium units.
In 1975, Multi-Realty executed a Master Deed and
Declaration of Restriction of the Makati Tuscany, which did
not specify the ownership of the 98 parking slots.
In 1989, Multi-Realty requested that two of its executives
be allowed to park their cars in two of Makati Tuscany’s
remaining 72 unallocated parking slots but Matusco denied
the request. Then, Matusco sent a letter offering Multi-
Realty for the use of the two unallocated parking slots,
which the latter rejected.
On April 1990, petitioner filed a complaint against Matusco
and alleged that it had retained ownership of the 98
unassigned parking slots but it was not specified in the
Master Deed and that the mistake was discovered for the
first time when Matusco Rejected its request. In its answer
with counterclaim, Matusco alleged that Multi-Realty had
no cause of action against it for reformation of their
contract. The RTC dismissed the case and ruled that Multi-
Realty failed to prove any ground for the reformation of its
agreement with Matusco.
Multi-Realty appealed the decision to the CA contending
that Reformation is proper because the deed failed to
express the true agreement or intention of the parties. It
parking slots and Matusco never objected the sale of the
slots to third parties. Matusco was also stopped from
assailing the ownership over the parking slots. Petitioner
also averred that Matusco’s counterclaim had already
prescribed because it was filed only in 1990 when the
period therefor had elapsed in 1981.
Whereas, Matusco contended that if there was a mistake in
the drafting of the master Deed in 1975, it should have been
corrected in 1977 upon the execution of the Deed of
Transfer.
Matusco alleged that it was not stopped from claiming
ownership over the slots because Multi-Realty acted
fraudulently and illegally. The CA rendered its decision
dismissing Multi-Realty’s appeal on the ground that its
action had already prescribed. The CA denied the MR filed
by petitioner.
Hence this petition.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal on
the ground of prescription
Ruling:
Yes. CA erred in dismissing petitioner’s appeal. Settled is
the rule that no questions will be entertained on appeal
unless they have been raised below. The reviewing court
need not consider points of law, theories, issues and
arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the
lower court as they cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. In the case at bar, neither petitioner nor respondent
raised the issue of prescription throughout the proceedings
in the RTC, hence the appellate court should have
proceeded to resolve petitioner’s appeal on its merits
instead of dismissing the same on a ground not raised by
the parties in the RTC and even in their pleadings in the CA.

Prescription is rightly regarded as a statute of repose

whose object is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims
from springing up at great distances of time and surprising
the parties or their representatives when the facts have
become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective
memory or death or removal of witnesses. The essence of
the statute of limitations is to prevent fraudulent claims
arising from unwarranted length of time and not to defeat
actions asserted on the honest belief that they were
sufficiently submitted for judicial determination.

Doctrine:
Article 1144 of the New Civil Code provides that an action
upon a written contract must be brought within ten (10)
years from the time the right of action accrues. In relation
thereto, Article 1150 of the New Civil Code provides that
the time for prescription of all actions, when there is no
special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted
from the day they may be brought. It is the legal possibility
of bringing the action that determines the starting point for
the computation of the period of prescription.