This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, in Daclag v. Macahilig,[56] we rejected the claim of petitioners that prescription is applicable because the action was based on fraud. We ruled that the action was not subject to prescription because it was, in fact, based on a deed of sale that was null and void. Thus: However, a review of the factual antecedents of the case shows that respondents' action for reconveyance was not even subject to prescription. | |||||