The  property in litigation  is a  homestead land of an area of 149,259 square meters, more  or less, assessed  at P4,000.  This land was  originally patented in the name of Claudio Maniago,  late  husband  of Maria  Barbosa  and father of the  plaintiffs  by substitution, as per Homestead Patent No.  16333 under H. A. No. 55411 and registered under Original Certificate of Title  No. 294  of the Land Records of the province of Nueva Vizcaya, issued on July 5, 1931 (Exhibit A).   After the demise of Claudio Maniago title to this property was transferred to Maria Barbosa and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 649 of the Register of  Deeds of Nueva Vizcaya was on February 31, 1935, issued in her name  (Exhibit B).

On November 2, 1937, Maria Barbosa executed a deed of sale (Exhibit 1)  of this homestead land in favor of Asuncion Agustin, married to Francisco S. Mallari, in consideration of the sum  of P2,000 receipt of which was acknowledge.  Notwithstanding this  acknowledgment,  on  that same day Francisco Mallari executed a so-called agreement (Exhibit 2), wherein he admitted that he owed Maria Barbosa the sum of P285 as part of the price  of the  land ^sold by the latter to his wife, promising to pay said amount in that very month of November, 1937.  In this document he  further promised to look iri'her behalf for a parcel of land of an extension not less than .20 hectares located  near the road between Santiago and Cordon, within the province of Isabela, at a  price not exceeding P200 to be  paid from the sum of P285 aforesaid and to help her in securing title for the land to be purchased.

It also appears from the record that in addition to said acknowledgment  of debt and promise of help,  Francisco Mallari assumed the obligation of Maria  Barbosa with the Philippine National Bank in  the  sum  of  P600  for which  said  land  was mortgaged  (Exhibit 4-A).  Aside from these acknowledgment of debt and assumption of  obligation Mallari must have given to the plaintiff, at the time of the execution  of Exhibt 1, the down  payment  agreed upon, as otherwise she would not have delivered possession of the property sold to Asuncion Agustin, who on November 9, 1937,  secured the issuance  in  her name of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2210  (Exhibit H).

It so happened, however, that for the reason to be given later Maria Barbosa did not purchase the land she desired to acquire along the road of Santiago and Cordon, and on April 22, 1941,  she  instituted  the  present action  in the Court  of First  Instance of  Nueva Vizcaya  against  the spouses Francisco S. Mallari and Asuncion Agustin alleging in her complaint, which was amended on October 7, 1948, that plaintiff's consent to Exhibit 1 had been obtained by fraud, deceit  and insiduous machination; that  the  deed was fictitious and without consideration; that even if said deed of sale were valid, if should nevertheless be rescinded because of the failure of Francisco S. Mallari to comply with his (alleged) obligation to deliver to plaintiff the 20 hectares of land near the road between Santiago  and Cordon that he undertook to give her as part payment for, or in exchange  of  her property.  She, therefore,  prayed the court (1) to annul and void the deed of sale Exhibit 1; (2) to restore to plaintiff the ownership and possession of said parcel  of land, requiring the Register of Deeds of Nueva Vizcaya, upon payment of the requisite fees therefor, to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2210 and re-issue Transfer Certificate of Title No. 649  in the name of the plaintiff; (3)  to sentence Francisco S. Mallari to pay to plaintiff 600 cavans of palay or their value of P1,500 which plaintiff failed to perceive from her land from 1937 to the date  of the filing of the complaint less  the  sum  of P715  made up of the amount of P115 already paid to the plaintiff, and  the sum of P600 that Mallari  paid to the; Philippine National Bank on account of the mortgage of said land plus a further annual  sum of 200 cavans of palay or their value of P500 as losses and damage she will suffer from the date of the filing of the complaint  until the possession of her land is fully restored to her; (4) to sentence defendants to pay the Agricultural and Industrial Bank the sum of P2,600 for which the land in question was mortgaged by defendants, or in  case of failure  to do so and the bank forecloses its mortgage over the property, to pay the plaintiff whatever amounts she may be forced to pay to redeem  the property  or  representing whatever losses she may suffer  by reason  of said foreclosure; and (5) that in  case the deed  of sale (Exhibit 1) is considered valid, that plaintiff be then sentenced to pay the defendants such sum as may be proved she actually received as purchase price of the homestead land in question but requiring defendants to return the land to her upon receipt of such payment, with costs against defendants.

These spouses timely filed their answer to the complaint and amended complaint and after hearing the Court rendered decision  dismissing both  plaintiff and complaint and defendants' counterclaim, with costs against the farmer.

According to the trial judge  and as contended  by defendants, the evidence, showed, among other things,  that in the month of July, 1936, Maria Barbosa secured a loan in the sum of P600 from the Agency  of the Philippine National Bank at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, mortgaging the land in question (Exhibit D).  As the loan had matured she was in need of money to liquidate her debt and save the mortgaged  property.  So  she and her  daughters  Elena and Angela  Maniago went to the house of defendant spouses Francisco S. Mallari and  Asuncion Agustin  in Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya, where Maria offered to sell said property to them because said Agency of the  Philippine National Bank was pressing her for the payment of the Wan.  Maria and said spouses agreed that Asuncion  Agustin would buy, as in fact she bought, the property in question on the following conditions: that the purchase price be P2,000; that on account of this  price  Asuncion would pay in the  act  of execution of the deed the sum of P1,115 and assume,  in addition, the obligation to pay to the Agency of the Philippine National Bank the capital  and interest of plaintiff's mortgage debt and that  the buyer would execute a promissory note for the balance in favor of the plaintiff.

On November 2, 1987, Maria Barbosa and her daughter Angela Maniago de Pascual and Francisco S. Mallari went to Bayombong,  Nueva Vizcaya, and once there and at the instance of  Mallari  they passed by the house of Atty. Macario Guevara to  whom they explained  the  nature  of the transaction  they  wanted  to execute.  This attorney accompanied them to the office of the Assistant Agent of the Philippine National Bank who approved the proposed transaction about the debt of Maria to the Bank which at that time amounted to P665.23.  Following the instructions of Atty. Guevara, the  parties entrusted to Mr. Hipolito Lasam,  the Notary Public of the Agency, the preparation of the deed of sale, giving him all the data and necessary information relative to the same.   Mr. Lasam drafted the deed  (Exhibit 1), but  not without first preparing at the instance of the plaintiff the agreement of the parties  (Exhibits 2, 2-A, E and E-l).  After all these papers had been prepared the same were translated to the contracting parties and Maria Barbosa forthwith impressed her digital mark at the bottom of  Exhibit 1 and Francisco  S. Mallari in turn signed the agreements (Exhibits 2, 2-A,  E and E-l).

By reason of the execution of the deed of sale (Exhibit 1), Mallari paid  the  consideration  of the sale in this manner: P1,050 in cash, F665.23  that the purchaser paid to the  Agency of the  Philippine  National  Bank  at Bayombong on account of the mortgage debt of Maria Barbosa (Exhibits 4 and 4-A), and executed  a  promissory note for P285 (Exhibits 2, 2-A, E  and E-l) which Mallari bound himself to satisfy within the month of November,  1937, binding himself at the same time to look for a parcel of land of an extension of not  less than 20 hectares situated near the road between Santiago and Cordon, in  the province of  Isabela,  to be  purchased  by Maria  Barbosa at a price not exceeding  P200 that was to be deducted  from the sum of P285 that Mallari owed  her.

On November 10, 1937,  Maria Barbosa ordered her Son-in-law Enrique Pascual  and her daughter Angela Maniago to go to Isabela  in company with Mallari  in search of the parcel of land they intended to buy.  In Santiago, Isabela, they found a homestead,  the property of the late Macario Reyes, not very far from the road and offered for sale at the price of P200, which they believed to be suitable and satisfactory for the plaintiff.   However, due to a disagreement between the daughters and sons of the plaintiff, their mother told Mallari that she would talk to "him again after her children had come to an 'understanding  on the conflict.

On November 15, 1937, Maria Barbosa saw Mallari just to ask him a sum of money and repeated the same story that she would return after her children came to a settlement, but Maria did not return any more until January 28, 1939, and this time it was  to collect from him the balance of her credit, but as Mallari was unable  to pay her any  amount because his wife was in  Macabebe, Parapanga,  for  medical treatment,  she  left infuriated and presented a complaint before the Provincial Fiscal of Nueva Vizcaya, Mr. Mayo, who  called him  to his office.  There Maria Barbosa stated that she was no longer interested  in securing the land in Isabela and wanted only to collect from Mallari her money, as per agreement (Exhibit  2), which Mallari promised to pay.   At the instance of the  Fiscal the agreement Exhibit 3 was prepared and  in virtue thereof Francisco S.  Mallari  paid Maria Barbosa  the sum  of  P209.26 on March 15,  1939, in the office of the  Fiscal,  as  shown by the statement made by Maria Barbosa at the bottom of Exhibit 3, in the  presence of Ernesto Quicia and Macario  Guevara.  At the same time the Fiscal caused  to  be written across Exhibit 2 the words "void as  it is paid,  March 15, 1931".

After the decision of the Court of First Instance was rendered Maria Barbosa  died and  her children by her  deceased husband Claudio Maniago substituted her  in this case.  They appealed from the decision of the Court  of  First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya to the Court of Appeals, but this Tribunal certified the case  to this Superiority because counsel for the plaintiffs stated in his  brief that "after .mature deliberation the plaintiffs  decided to raise only questions of law  involved in the case, as set  out  in their assignments of error, (for) they accept and therefore adopt, for purposes of this appeal, the following findings of fact made by the court a quo."

As the facts found  by trial  judge are  not disputed, we will now proceed to discuss the questions of law raised in appellants'  brief. They contend that the original complaint filed  on April 22, 1941, expressly alleges that the parcel of land herein involved  was  covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 649 in Maria Barbosa's name, which title on its  face  shows  that the said  land  was surveyed pursuant to section 12 to 22 of Act No. 2874.  Therefore, the trial judge erred in holding that the amended complaint filed on October 7,1948 which avers facts in amplification of the  original  complaint, for  plaintiffs merely  sought thereby to  be allowed  to redeem the land sold  on the ground that it is  a homestead  patented under Act No. 2874 introduced a new cause of action and, consequently, that His Honor also erred in maintaining that the period of 5 years provided for in Act No. 2874, within which the plaintiff could repurchase the land sold, had expired (errors I and II),  because  under the allegations of the original complaint and the evidence adduced in  support thereof, taken in conjunction with the admission contained in the deed of sale  (Exhibit 1), attached  to the first amended answer of the defendants dated June 9, 1941, the  court was in duty bound to render judgment allowing the plaintiff to redeem the land in question even without the plaintiff amending her complaint (error III).

Section 117 of Act No. 2874, now section  119 of Commonwealth Act No, 141, prescribes the following:

 "SEC. 119. Every. conveyance of land acquired  tinder the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject  to repurchase  by the  applicant, his widow, or legal  heirs, within a period of five year from the date of the conveyance."

The deed  of sale  (Exhibit 1) was executed on November 2, 1937, and  the original complaint was filed  on  April 22, 1941, which covers only a period of 3 years, 5  months and  20 days.   However, upon going over the averments of said original complaint "we find that the action was not instituted for the purpose of redeeming or repurchasing the property in  question under the provisions of said Commonwealth Act No. 141, but to annul said deed of sale  (Exhibit 1)  on the ground that Maria Barbosa's  consent was obtained through fraud, deceit and insiduous machinations, or to rescind said contract (Exhibit 1) for failure on the part of the vendee  to pay the consideration thereof and, incidentally, for the restoration of ownership and possession of the land to  the plaintiff, and fdr the payment of damages.  Such being the aim of the original complaint the Court under no circumstance could  on its averments and much less before hearing authorize or provide for the repurchase of the  property under  the provision of section 119  of Commonwealth Act No.  141,  specially  when it contained no allegation that plaintiff was in position and ready for the repurchase, and when the amended complaint was filed on October 7, 1948, after liberation, said period of 5 y?ear3 had already elapsed.  Moreover, it is to be noted that the amended complaint, though mentioning that the property in controversy was a "homestead land originally patented in the name of Claudio Maniago for which  he was issued Original Certificate of Title No. 294 of the Register of Deeds of Nueva Vizcaya and that plaintiff had the right under the  law of redeeming the same  within a period of 5 years from the date  she sold the property to the defendants', yet in the  prayer of  said amended  complaint there is no-request for permission to redeem the land in question under the aforementioned provisions of the law on the matter.   For this reason  we share in the opinion of the trial judge when he says that the action for the repurchase of a homestead  is new and  distinct from the one interposed in the original complaint for the annulment of a deed of sale.  And it cannot be said that the amendment introduced  by  the latter complaint came to supplement or amplify the acts alleged in the original complaint. Consequently, the period of prescription, in so far as the new cause of action for repurchase of the homestead, went on running from the date of the execution of Exhibit 1 (November 2,1937)  at least up to the filing of the amended complaint (October 7, 1948), that is, far beyond the period of prescription already stated.

"(j)  When a new cause of action is included in an  amended complaint, , and, at the time such amended complaint is filed, the period of limitation for such cause of action has already expired, is the action  barred?   Or, does the amendment relate back to the date of the  original complaint?

The  rule is well established that an amendment to a  complaint which introduces a new  cause of action is equivalent to a fresh suit upon a new cause of action and the statute of limitation continues to run  until the amendment is filed (Ruyman et al. vs. Director of Lands,  34  Phil.,  428-429). However, an  amendment to a  complaint by the  addition of a  new count which merely supplements  and amplifies the  facts originally alleged, relates back to date of commencement of the acton and is not barred by the  statute of limitations, the period of which expires after service of the original  complaint but before service of the amendment."  (Moran's Rules  of Court, Vol. I,  p.  384, 1952 ed.)

The original complaint in the case at bar does not state a cause of action with regard to the  repurchase of the property under the provisions of the aforementioned section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141.

Wherefore,  and on the strength of the foregoing considerations,  we affirm the  decision appealed from,  with costs  against  appellants.  It is so  ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Conception,  Reyes,  J.  B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.