jed nieves digest

CONRADO R. ISIDRO, PETITIONER, VS. NISSAN MOTOR PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

[ G.R. No. 136500, December 03, 1999 ]

Facts:

On December 21, 1995, petitioner bought from respondent a brand new Nissan Sentra with an express manufacturer's warranty against hidden defects for a period of 24 months or 50,000 kilometers, whichever comes first.

On August 31, 1998, or two years and nine months after delivery of the car, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, assigned to Branch 81, a complaint against respondent for breach of warranty.

The trial court dismissed the case on the ground that the plaintiff’s cause of action has prescribed.

Issue:

 Whether or not petitioner's action for enforcement of the manufacturer's express warranty covering the subject motor vehicle has prescribed.

Ruling:

 The manufacturer's warranty covering the subject motor vehicle was for defective parts over a period of twenty four (24) months or fifty thousand (50,000) kilometers, whichever comes first. Where there is an express warranty in the contract, as in the case at bar, the prescriptive period is the one specified in the express warranty, if any.

The action to enforce the warranty was filed two and a half years from the date of the purchase or delivery of the vehicle subject of the warranty.

Clearly, the action has prescribed. The period of the guarantee under the express warranty has expired.

CARLOS B. DE GUZMAN, PETITIONER,VS. TOYOTA CUBAO, INC., RESPONDENT.

[ G.R. NO. 141480, November 29, 2006 ]

Facts: On November 27, 1997, petitioner purchased from respondent a brand new white Toyota Hi-Lux. The vehicle was delivered to petitioner two days later. On October 18, 1998, petitioner demanded the replacement of the engine of the vehicle because it developed a crack after traversing Marcos Highway during a heavy rain. Petitioner asserted that respondent should replace the engine with a new one based on an implied warranty.

On April 20, 1999, petitioner filed a complaint for damages against respondent with the RTC. Respondent moved to dismiss the case on the ground that under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, the petitioner's cause of action had prescribed as the case was filed more than six months from the date the vehicle was sold and/or delivered.

Issue: Whether or not the cause of action was already barred on the ground of prescription by the statute of limitation.

Ruling: Under Article 1599 of the Civil Code, once an express warranty is breached, the buyer can accept or keep the goods and maintain an action against the seller for damages. In the absence of an existing express warranty on the part of the respondent, as in this case, the allegations in petitioner's complaint for damages were clearly anchored on the enforcement of an implied warranty against hidden defects, i.e., that the engine of the vehicle which respondent had sold to him was not defective. By filing this case, petitioner wants to hold respondent responsible for breach of implied warranty for having sold a vehicle with defective engine. Such being the case, petitioner should have exercised this right within six months from the delivery of the thing sold. Since petitioner filed the complaint on April 20, 1999, or more than nineteen months counted from November 29, 1997 (the date of the delivery of the motor vehicle), his cause of action had become time-barred or prescribed.