MELITONA VDA. DE ARCEO, EUSEBIO, JR., ARACELI, RUBEN, CORAZON, DOROTHY, DANILO, ALL SURNAMED ARCEO, THE LAST TWO MINORS HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER MELITONA VDA. DE ARCEO…

Appeal from the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Marinduque
dismissing the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 1290 of said court.

The following facts are not disputed:  On July
6, 1944, Eusebio Arceo,
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-appellants, sold two (2) contiguous
parcels of residential land, situated in the poblacion
of Mogpog, Marinduque, to
Jacinta S. Go, married to Lauro L. Go, herein
defendants-appellees, for the amount of P2,000.00,
with the right to repurchase the same
within one (1) year from the date of the notarial
acknowledgment of the deed.^[1]
Immediately thereafter, Jacinta Go and
her husband took possession of the property and “obtained one tax
declaration in the name of defendant Lauro L. Go,
with a portion thereof containing 356 square meters covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167 in the name of Jacinta S. Go,”^[2]
which portion “was thereafter mortgaged for P2,500.00 with Security Bank
and Trust Company, specifically on April 6,
1960.”^[3]
Then, “on September 19,
1962 the defendants sold this time 209
square meters of the same property to a
certain Presentacion Malabanan,
for P4,000.00, more or less”;^[4]
and “on September 12, 1963 the defendants furthermore sold 205.9 square
meters of the property registered under Act No. 3344 to a certain Mrs. Judith
S. Lara for the amount of P4,000.00;”^[5]
leaving “a portion containing 200
square meters, more or less, of the property registered under Act No. 3344,
covered by Tax Declaration No. 12188 in the name of defendant Lauro L. Go.“^[6]

On April 12, 1946,
Pilar Arceo sister of Eusebio Arceo, filed an action
against the latter for the partition of the estate of their deceased parents,
spouses Macario Arceo and Raymunda Monterey, with the Court of First Instance of Marinduque, which was docketed therein as Civil
Case No. 654.  On March 11, 1947, the parties submitted an agreement of partition,
which included two residential lots, subject matter of the sale con pacto de retro.  As a
result, Atty. Milambiling asked, and was allowed, to
intervene in behalf of his client, Lauro L. Go.  On April 15, 1947, the court issued an order therein, which
reads, as follows:

“The project of partition presented by the parties on March
11, 1947, is approved, excluding, however, the two parcels of land, one in
Barrio Balanakan, Mogpog,
and the other a residential lot in the poblacion of Mogpog, which parcels
of land are subject of the intervention filed by Attorney F. Milambiling on behalf and in representation of his clients
and which are the subject of the opposition to the project of partition.  The parties are, therefore, enjoined to
respect said project of partition as modified and must comply strictly with all
the conditions therein stated.”^[7]

On May 8, 1952, Pilar Arceo filed an action with
the Court of First Instance of Marinduque to recover
possession of one-half (1/2) of the residential lots, subject matter of the
deed of sale with right of repurchase, from the spouses Lauro
L. Go and Jacinta S. Go, claiming that the lots belonged to Macario Arceo and being an heir
to the latter, she is entitled to one-half (1/2) of said property, and that she
was not a party to the deed of sale with right of repurchase, executed by Eusebio Arceo in favor of Jacinta
S. Go and, consequently, cannot be bound by said contract, much less deprived
of her share in said properties.  The
case was docketed therein as Civil Case No. 903.  On December
4, 1955, the trial court rendered judgment therein, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, this Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the
defendants declaring that the deed of sale with right to repurchase marked (Exh. 6) is valid and in full force and effect and that said
defendants are entitled to remain in the possession of the lot in question as
owners, with costs to the plaintiff.”^[8]

On February 18, 1964,
Melitona Vda. de Arceo, Eusebio V. Arceo, Jr., Araceli V. Arceo, Ruben V. Arceo, Corazon M.
Arceo, Dorothy V. Arceo, Danilo V. Arceo, Jesus M. Arceo, and Martiniana Monteagudo, representing her minor children Honorito, Menecena, Raymunda, Macario, Fatima, and
Ramon, all surnamed Arceo, alleging to be the heirs
of Eusebio Arceo, filed a
complaint with the Court of First Instance of Marinduque
against Lauro L. Go and Jacinta S. Go for the reconveyance of their title over the residential lots,
subject matter of the sale with right of repurchase, claiming that the contract
of sale with right of repurchase executed by
Eusebio Arceo and Jacinta
S. Go is an equitable mortgage and that they are now seeking its
redemption.^[9]
The case was docketed therein as Civil
Case No. 1290, and subsequently thereafter, the defendants Lauro L. Go and Jacinta S. Go filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint upon the following grounds:

“1.   That the cause of action is barred by prior
judgment and by statute of limitations;

“2.   That the claim or demand set forth in the
plaintiffs’ pleading has been waived, abandoned, or otherwise extinguished;

“3.   That the Court has no jurisdiction over the
nature of the action or suit.”^[10]

which the court granted on March 31, 1964.^[11]
The plaintiffs filed a motion for the reconsideration of the decision,^[12]
but the trial court denied the motion
on November 5, 1964.^[13] Whereupon, the plaintiffs appealed to this Court.^[14]

The appellants contend
that the trial court erred in finding that the cause of action is barred by
prior judgment, and erred, consequently, in finding that the case cannot be
brought for another litigation.

There is no merit in the appeal. 
It should be noted that the action filed by the appellants is for a
judicial declaration that the agreement entered into by their ancestor, Eusebio Arceo, with Jacinta S. Go
is a simple mortgage and not a sale with pacto
de retro.  The contract,
however, was executed on July 6, 1944.  The Court, per Mr. Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in Fernandez vs. Fernandez,^[15] said that “the right of action to
question the nature of the original transaction as well as any action to
recover the land, if any such rights ever existed, were extinguished by
prescription ten years after the appellee
consolidated his ownership in 1936.” Since the present action was filed
only on February 18, 1964, almost 20 years after the execution of the questioned contract, the
action has already prescribed.

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, AFFIRMED.  With costs against the
appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Acting Chairman), Antonio, Aquino, and Santos,
JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Record on Appeal, p. 22.

^[2]
Id., p. 16, par. 6 of Complaint.

^[3]
Id., Id.,
par. 7 of Complaint.

^[4]
Id., Id.,
par. 8 of Complaint.

^[5]
Id., p. 17, par. 9 of
Complaint.

^[6]
Id., p. 25, par. 10 of
Complaint.

^[7]
Id., p. 25.

^[8]
Id., p. 23.

^[9]
Id., p. 14.

^[10]
Id., p. 19.

^[11]
Id., p. 11.

^[12]
Id., p. 33.

^[13]
Id., p. 40.

^[14]
Id., p. 2.

^[15]
109 Phil. 1033, restated in Bunyi vs. Reyes,
L-28845, June 10, 1971, 39
SCRA 504.